Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[RickM]

In my quest to study this “agnostic-atheism” debate further, I sought out the creator of the term, Robert Flint, and his 1903 book, Agnostism.

Resolute to finish it through, I got to page 10 and found Flint’s juxtaposition of words and ideas so convoluting that they had the alchemic effect of turning my eyelids to lead. However, upon waking I quickly recalled the part where Flint, using much cunning and devious intent, hijacked his book’s title from its rightful owner and inventor, Professor Thomas H. Huxley, whose first use of the word, along with its well-intentioned meaning, occurred in 1869. Not only did Flint declare the word free for the taking after Huxley‘s passing in 1895, but he also stated it subject to redefinition, due to a distinct lack of specificity and proper design. I can only surmise that what ensues in his book is a very artful and deceptive justification of the theft, mixed with a complex matrix of hyphenated terms and logic to continue unabated for the remaining 600 pages, and not unlike the process this thread is going through.

Below is an example taken early from the book. I created a flowchart to test its logic, but I can’t seem to circumvent the endless loop. After being afflicted by a few of these brainteasers, I’m sure Flint’s befuddled contemporaries were quick to give him his way, as we will likely do with ynot and his followers.

“But a knowing subject is quite distinct from a known object, and actual knowing and the actually known are quite distinct from possible knowing and the knowable. Similarly distinct are the unknowing, the unknown, and the unknowable. While, then, agnosticism, if its meaning is to have any connection with the derivation of its name, must negate knowledge in one of these relations, it also must, if it is not to be essentially ambiguous and misleading, directly negate them in only one of them. In which of them should it be? The answer is obvious.”

 

[Slowvehicle]

I may start another thread to debate that argument.

Given your devotion to explaining to others how they, in fact, think, it needs to be pointed out that you would not, in this format, be "debating" an "argument".

"Arguing" an "opinion", perhaps.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I just want to bloody thing to stop. Doesn't it know it can't do what it's doing

Under actual conditions, it would stop...there is a lesson there.

 

[RickM]

Under actual conditions, it would stop...there is a lesson there.

 

[Navigator]

Theist and atheist are the only categories. Everything else is a subcategory of either one.

As far as beliefs go, this one is particularly unbelievable. Examine the chart attached to this post for a lesson on the way things actually are.

That makes no sense. When "humans grow from the default state of atheist and become theists" then the prefix "a-" (meaning "not" or "without") is dropped. You don't need to add a prefix.

Okay. I was under the impression the word atheist was being used this way in relation to agnostics.

The terms "atheist-theist" and "theist-atheist" are oxymorons. They basically mean "theist who is not theist", which is absurd.

That was a big part of the point of my post. It is as equally absurd to claim an agnostic is an atheist in denial.

That's because the description "baby" is no longer accurate. An adult cannot be a baby, and a baby cannot be an adult, so the term "baby-adult" is nonsensical.

That was a big part of the point of my post. It is as equally nonsensical to claim the default setting of a human baby as being 'atheist'.

A baby can, over time, turn into an adult, but it's never both at the same time.

A baby will over time choose what it will or won't believe in relation to the existence of god(s). In order for that to be able to happen, the baby has to mature in conscious self awareness and intelligence.
It has to 'grow up'.

No. Just no.

Of course 'no'. However, that is basically what the claim "agnostics are atheists in denial" is saying. We cannot have it one way for theists and another for agnostics.
Anyway the claim is simply incorrect, because it is built on a faulty premise in the first place.

But there are agnostic theists. They're the people who tell you that you have to accept God's existence on faith alone.

Why would an agnostic do something like that? Faith requires belief. It is a subset of belief.

No, calling a theist an atheist would simply be incorrect. It's calling a person a theist-atheist that's the oxymoron.

That was part of my point. Calling an agnostic and atheist is also oxymoron.

Strictly speaking, it was the other way around. "Atheist" has it's origins in the ancient Greek word "atheos", which was created from the prefix "a-" meaning "not" or "without", and the word "theos" meaning "god(s)".

Your logic is at fault here. "Theos" - as you point out, was the first word, which "atheos" was afterward created from.

As it changed into the word we know today, it came to mean "without belief in gods".

Which is not the way it should have been, if being truthful had anything to do with the decision behind the creating of the meaning.

It actually should mean "disputes the existence of god(s)."

The word "theist" is much more recent, and was created by removing the prefix "a-" to create a word that means "with belief in gods".

The word atheist is also then much more recent. It should mean "One who disputes the existence of god(s).

I think that sometimes the phrase "ignorant atheist" is used to describe someone who lacks belief in god because they have no concept of god, and therefore are incapable of believing that god exists.

There is a better description for people who are incapable of conceptional analysis. Things needn't always be defined according to god beliefs or non beliefs.

Some dictionaries do include that definition (although "deny" is used in place of "dispute"), but I don't think it's a good one.

Deny, dispute, use impolite phrases, fly off the handle, exhibit frustration and anger, are non civil, strongly dislike.

It is a good overall description to say 'an atheist is someone who disputes the existence of god(s).

If we accept that definition, what word would we use for someone who believes that there is no God (or merely lacks belief in a god)...

Believing there is no god(s), is different than lacking belief in god(s)

...but refuses to dispute the existence of god(s) because a universe with no god would be absolutely indistinguishable from a universe with a deistic god, therefore disputing it's hypothetical existence would be completely pointless?

I have to answer your question in two parts because you have tried to say that someone who believes there is no god(s), is the same as someone who lacks belief in god(s)

Someone who believes there is no god(s) but refuses to dispute the existence of god(s) because a universe with no god would be absolutely indistinguishable from a universe with a deistic god, might be considered a weak atheist.

Someone who lacks belief in god(s) but refuses to dispute the existence of god(s) because a universe with no god would be absolutely indistinguishable from a universe with a deistic god, might be considered an agnostic.

Or what about a non-believer who only refuses to dispute the existence of God because of fear of being persecuted by those who believe that God exists?

That might be considered a weak atheist.

And what about a person who does believe, but disputes the existence of God because the like to argue, or want to intentionally upset other believers?

That would be a troll. Trolls can be left out of this discussion for obvious reasons.
Anyone who does this kind of thing does not believe. Rather they claim to believe. That is different. It is purposeful deception.
A person chopping peoples heads off in the name of gods(s) would fit this category.
A person who joins a peaceful protest march and throws things at cops would fit this category.

Defining atheism by what a person believes makes more sense to me than defining it by what they do.

I agree but have to add:

I will point out that generally speaking people trying to be honest will at least do what they believe.
It might be debatable whether their beliefs are actually honest, but since the nature of belief is such that someone can believe they are being honest even if they actual are not...well lets just say, that is one good reason for not having beliefs in the first place. It is also a very good reason for wanting to learn how to be honest with ones self....learning how to develop the process of deep introspection. Get to know ones self and be honest about it.

 

[Navigator]

“But a knowing subject is quite distinct from a known object, and actual knowing and the actually known are quite distinct from possible knowing and the knowable. Similarly distinct are the unknowing, the unknown, and the unknowable. While, then, agnosticism, if its meaning is to have any connection with the derivation of its name, must negate knowledge in one of these relations, it also must, if it is not to be essentially ambiguous and misleading, directly negate them in only one of them. In which of them should it be? The answer is obvious.”

We really should not place too much credence on the ancient ones and their ways.

As evolving consciousness, if we are to hearken back to formative times, we should at least take with us a pick and shovel.

It is easy enough to understand that we must also take a soft brush, and use this to carefully to sweep away both the obvious and subtle attempts of the ancients to conceal simple ideas and concepts behind complex languages.

Our world is not their world anymore.

An atheist is not someone who lacks belief in god(s). It is someone who disputes the existence of god(s).

To accept this as true, is to throw out the ridiculous claim that every human is born an atheist.

 

[Navigator]

Under actual conditions, it would stop...there is a lesson there.

Yes. It is an analog of the belief that all humans are born atheists and the belief that all agnostics are atheists in denial.

 

[ynot]

That's the first time I am seeing you discuss "subcategories". Thus far,

How pedantically petty. I have been using the term "subsets" in the same way I would use the term "subcategories"

you have refused to acknowledge a difference even between those who refuse to believe and those who are not capable of forming a belief.

Rubbish! I have put them together under the same category of "atheist". I have never refused to acknowledge they are different as subsets/categories of atheist.

This is why you insist that all babies are born atheist. Of course, by that reckoning, all plants, animals and inanimate objects are also atheists .

This really is "bottom-of-the-barrel" arguing. I thought you might be capable of better.

 

[fuelair]

Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial.....


Belief does not make anything true, nor disbelief make it false. Reality is the only thing that covers it: it is either real or not real. BUT (and clearly a big BUT it is) if you have no way to know, any point on the scale between Is Real and Is Not Real is perfectly legitimate until the Real is actually and conclusively demonstrated.

YMMV, but if it does you are wrong.

 

[fuelair]

BTW, you do know your avatar cannot work in real life I trust!! There's a site for that!!!

 

[Dinwar]

Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial.....


Belief does not make anything true, nor disbelief make it false. Reality is the only thing that covers it: it is either real or not real. BUT (and clearly a big BUT it is) if you have no way to know, any point on the scale between Is Real and Is Not Real is perfectly legitimate until the Real is actually and conclusively demonstrated.

YMMV, but if it does you are wrong.

I'm with you 99% of the way. My only disagreement is that you left out the possibility of completely withholding judgement. It's like sexuality--one can be gay, straight, bisexual, or asexual. One can believe, not believe, be somewhere between, or abstain. Abstaining isn't disbelief, it's more fundamental.

 

[Brian-M]

There's a site for that!!!

The Museum of Unworkable Devices

 

[RickM]

The Museum of Unworkable Devices

Which way is the kitty spinning? Clockwise or counterclockwise?

 

[Meadmaker]

Theist and atheist are the only categories. Everything else is a subcategory of either one.

Well that's one useful categorization. You have people who believe in God and people who do not believe in God.

But it isn't the only useful categorization. There is also people who are confident about the existence or nonexistence of God and people who are not confident about the existence or nonexistence of God. In that scheme, you could say that agnostics and non-agnostics are the only categories, and everything else is a subcategory.

Or you could say that there are those who reject the existence of God, and those who do not reject the existence of God.

Or you could say that there are people who assert that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists, and people who think it is possible to know whether or not God exists.

In general, there are lots of ways you could take the wide range of beliefs regarding the existence of God, and divide that range into two pieces, and declare that those pieces are the top level category, while all the elements in those ranges are subcategories.

 

[Steve]

Which way is the kitty spinning? Clockwise or counterclockwise?

Both

 

[RickM]

Both

You should only be worried if it's not spinning at all....and I think there are a few here that can make that claim.

 

[Navigator]

Theist and atheist are the only categories. Everything else is a subcategory of either one.

One of the observations that allows me to be very skeptical about the claim through the belief that 'everyone is born an atheist' (and thus the default position of all humans is atheist) is that atheists (especially strong atheists) not only lack belief in god(s) but also dispute the existence of god(s).

Since the newborn do not dispute the existence of god(s), atheists (especially strong atheists) have moved far from the assumed default position, so they are not really any longer at the default position themselves. In reality they are practicing atheists and as such are significantly removed from assumed default position.

That is why my diagram attached to this post best exemplifies the actually reality that the default position is 'Blank Slate' and from that position agnosticism, atheism and theism arise as separate positions.

The positions may have some overlapping connections with each other but should be viewed as different enough to warrant their own individual category.

That is why I am skeptical of the thread topic heading which positively asserts that "Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial."

Actually I am more than just skeptical. I am convinced the claim is untrue.

This also gets me thinking about the position referred to as 'skeptical atheist' and what that should actually signify, and whether those who claim to be skeptical atheists are, in practice, actually being skeptical in their atheism.

Especially those who believe the default position of new born human beings is that of 'atheist' and believe that agnostics are atheists in denial.

Agnostically speaking, I am skeptical about atheism.

 

[Senex]

This discussion (like 90% of others) is about the definition of words. I'm an atheist but I might choose to call myself an agnostic in certain company to lesson the tension. It's true I can't prove god doesn't exist, but I can't speak for that invisible unicorn sitting in the corner of the room either.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...God...God...God...God...God...God...God...God...God.

It should probably be 'gods'.

 

[Meadmaker]

It should probably be 'gods'.

I thought about that, but I wanted to distinguish between "the creator of the universe" versus "very powerful beings who operate outside of our known laws of physics". Very powerful spiritual beings might just be a highly evolved life form, but not really gods.

Which reminds me.....

Ynot,

Where do animists or ancestor worshippers fit in the atheist/believer dichotomy? If I believe in tree spirits, but no universal creator, am I a theist or an atheist? Likewise if I believe that my very human, but dead, ancestors continue to observe our lives, and can send good luck or bad to me if they find my acts pleasing, am I an atheist or a theist?