Agnosticism is Atheism in Denial

[ynot]

Yes.

In the popular sense of the term according to the philosopher William L. Rowe?

Ooops - I shouldn't have used the term "agnostic-alienist". It's just that agnostic didn't fit with the alien theme. So I meant an agnostic type term (in the popular sense) that purely means "I don't have a belief one way or the other". Which is essentially saying the same as atheists do - "I don't have a belief in a god".

 

[Brian-M]

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”?

That depends on whether or not they're taking the "hard" analienist position that there definitely is no life on other planets.

 

[wollery]

By William L. Rowe's definition, as provided by you earlier, agnostic means lacking belief, so an agnostic alienist is by definition an a-alienist. That's why that definition is crap for the purposes you intend to use it for.

You define alienist as someone believing in aliens, then use a definition of agnostic that includes non-belief. There can therefore be no such thing, under that definition of agnostic, as an agnostic alienist.

The definitions you use render you question meaningless.

 

[ynot]

I don't have a belief one way or the other.

Therefore you don't have a belief in a god. Therefore you are an atheist.

That you also don’t have a disbelief is irrelevant.

 

[ynot]

That depends on whether or not they're taking the "hard" analienist position that there definitely is no life on other planets.

I like your word better than mine

 

[ynot]

By William L. Rowe's definition, as provided by you earlier, agnostic means lacking belief, so an agnostic alienist is by definition an a-alienist. That's why that definition is crap for the purposes you intend to use it for.

You define alienist as someone believing in aliens, then use a definition of agnostic that includes non-belief. There can therefore be no such thing, under that definition of agnostic, as an agnostic alienist.

The definitions you use render you question meaningless.

.....

Ooops - I shouldn't have used the term "agnostic-alienist". It's just that agnostic didn't fit with the alien theme. So I meant an agnostic type term (in the popular sense) that purely means "I don't have a belief one way or the other". Which is essentially saying the same as atheists do - "I don't have a belief in a god".

 

[ynot]

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...

Atheists that use the term agnostic to describe that they can't make a decision commonly do so as if they aren't atheists.
Example . . .

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'

 

[MontagK505]

That depends on whether or not they're taking the "hard" analienist position that there definitely is no life on other planets.

I don't see how you could take that position without actually closely examining all other planets. You could say: "On the question of life on other planets I am an agnostic." Most of us would define life as self-replicating biological organisms. However defining God seems to be much more vague, which might explain the very large number of opinions dealing with the definition of God vs the much smaller number of opinions dealing with the definition of life.

 

[ynot]

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...

The people that claim they are agnostics because can’t decide either way are the ones that are claiming that form of agnosticism is different than atheism, not me.

 

[Peregrinus]

"What are the facts?" - Bertrand Russell

(Insight his, emphasis mine.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

...it is the very lack of evidence that makes it a "belief", in which a believer has "faith".

"...substance of things hoped for..." and all that.

 

[ynot]

"What are the facts?" - Bertrand Russell

(Insight his, emphasis mine.)

What have facts got to do with theism and atheism? The lack of facts forces theists to merely believe in god(s). Atheists don’t accept that mere belief in god(s) is credible. Atheists want and ask for facts from theists, but they don’t get them because they haven’t got any to give.

 

[ynot]

...it is the very lack of evidence that makes it a "belief", in which a believer has "faith".

"...substance of things hoped for..." and all that.

I was responding to this post (bolding mine) . . .

An atheist might believe there is no God (faith)

I was pointing out that the complete lack of evidence that gods do exist, The complete lack of reason why gods should exist, and the complete lack of scientific method how gods could exist, gives ample and justifiable reason for atheists to conclude that there are no gods, rather than that conclusion is only the product of mere faith.

My post had nothing to do with theists.

 

[stanfr]

Therefore you don't have a belief in a god. Therefore you are an atheist.

That you also don’t have a disbelief is irrelevant.

No. 'Atheist' comes from the Greek, it's a positive assertion, and assertion of without ('a') theism. My assertion is an 'either OR' assertion, it's a completely different logical statement. But whatever, I don't care what you call me.

 

[psionl0]

Atheists are afraid of being associated with the belief in no gods for some reason.

Therefore, they redefine the term to be more like what many call "agnosticism". They use the expression "lack of belief" as if it were somehow different from "disbelief" or "unbelief".

 

[ynot]

SOME Atheists are afraid of being associated with the belief in no gods for some reason.

Therefore, they redefine the term to be more like what many call "agnosticism". They use the expression "lack of belief" as if it were somehow different from "disbelief" or "unbelief".

Fixed that for you

Don’t think any credible atheist could or would ever claim to have absolute proof of no gods. But the complete lack of evidence to support the existence of gods (and the complete lack of reason for gods, and scientific possibility of gods) is a strongly conclusive and justifiable reason to conclude gods don’t exist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Fixed that for you

Don’t think any credible atheist could or would ever claim to have absolute proof of no gods. But the complete lack of evidence to support the existence of gods (and the complete lack of reason for gods, and scientific possibility of gods) is a strongly conclusive and justifiable reason to conclude gods don’t exist.

You are still missing the point that, for the believer, it is precisely the lack of evidence that requires faith to support belief.

 

[stanfr]

Fixed that for you

Don’t think any credible atheist could or would ever claim to have absolute proof of no gods. But the complete lack of evidence to support the existence of gods (and the complete lack of reason for gods, and scientific possibility of gods) is a strongly conclusive and justifiable reason to conclude gods don’t exist.

That depends on how you define god or gods. The universe exists. Depending on how you view the universe, it has god-like properties. Intelligence arose from matter, no? But I would agree with you that there is a lack of scientific evidence for a 'god' as described by most religions existing.

 

[Meadmaker]

Variations of this topic have been around JREF/ISF for as long as the forum has existed, and will keep coming around because there are always some people who have not yet thought it all the way through. I usually avoid this topic, because I have thought it all the way through (at least, no one has come up with anything I haven't considered about the topic in a very long time), but I've decided to throw in my two cents this time. I want to add something to the topic from slightly different angles than I often see it discussed. It's not deep thought and you won't be enlightened, but depending on exactly what you have thought about in the past, it might be something slightly different. I hope that it's at least mildly thought provoking for a few.

First, I sometimes call myself an atheist and sometimes an agnostic. It of depends on context. The key difference between the two is that an atheist is extremely confident that there is no God, while an agnostic doesn't actually believe in God, but doesn't rule out the possibility. I find that when it comes to specific religions, I'm an atheist.

For example, if I know I am talking to a Christian, and the Christian asks me if I am an atheist, I generally say that I am. The reason I do this is that, with respect to Christianity, I'm an atheist. I am very, very, confident that the Son of God did not become incarnate in the form of a Jewish rabble-rouser. The possibility that I am wrong about this is, in my opinion, not even worth considering. If I said I am agnostic, that could be taken as I am uncertain, and that I don't believe that Jesus is God, but I'm open to the idea.

In general, I'm pretty darned confident that there is no "personal God". i.e. there is no God that listens to prayers and intervenes in human affairs. With respect to a personal God, I would say I am an atheist.

On the other hand, I am open to the idea that the universe could be the product of a conscious mind. I don't see any evidence of that, but I have no other explanation of its existence, and I don't know what the evidence would look like if it were there. It's the old question "why is there something instead of nothing". I have no explanation, so I'm open to the idea that somehow, a conscious decision was at work. (Of course, that demands the question of why that consciousness exists, and that too cannot be answered. Really, this is all pretty well worn ground.)

So, with respect to a general concept of a God, I don't reject the possibility out of hand. I just don't happen to believe it. That makes me an agnostic.

My general attitude toward God goes along with, and has been influenced by, the teaching of the Buddha on that subject. The short version of that topic is that when someone asked the Buddha if there were a God, he pointed out that God, if he exists, would have an infinite mind, and that no man, with a finite mind, could possibly understand such an entity. Not only could you never know what such an entity would want, you couldn't even truly understand what it would mean for such an entity to exist. Therefore, the question doesn't matter, and you should ignore it an live your life in the best way possible.

I would say that the Buddha was an agnostic, not an atheist.

 

[psionl0]

Fixed that for you

Don’t think any credible atheist could or would ever claim to have absolute proof of no gods. But the complete lack of evidence to support the existence of gods (and the complete lack of reason for gods, and scientific possibility of gods) is a strongly conclusive and justifiable reason to conclude gods don’t exist.

That's not very good fixing.

A belief in "no gods" or a disbelief in the existence of any gods that one cares to mention would put the atheist on a similar (though not necessarily equal) ground as a believer.

However, a "lack of belief" (as if saying, "I have never thought about it") would make atheism seem like a rational (even default) position.