Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[the PC apeman]

No, doiong so is reducto ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule. Using qualifiers like "more rational" to describe the comparison are misleading claims of predetermined validity based on opinion (which usually translates to "agrees with my conclusion"). I already asked this, but where does Buddhism, which is a religion, fall into your comparison?

This isn't about popularity or antiquity, this is about social inertia and context. If you can point me to a Church if the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church, then I would agree it is an apt comparison. Now, on the other hand of that, even though it is a joke I find the Church of FSM to be a relevant comparison when the issue of evolution versus ID comes up, because as Mr. Henderson has stated in his site's FAQs ^link that is exactly the purpose of the church. So, when you or someo other enterprising person goes and creates the Church of the Invisible Bunny or the Unicorn Orthodox Church, I'll agree it's an apt comparison (provided you are comparatively thorough as Henderson was).

Of course these comparisons are made up. They're an attempt to illustrate a narrow aspect of religious belief. It's not reducto ad absurdum if that territory would be expected to stand on it's own - as is the case in the typical comparisons. What they strip away is exactly appeal to popularity and/or antiquity - The very things you insist on putting back into the comparison.

(As to the Buddhism question, I could only respond with which Buddhism?)

 

[Trakar]

You may be using differing definitions than I am, but if you agree that...

Theism = belief in a deity or deities
Atheism = absence of a belief in a deity or deities

...then that covers 100% of humanity. You either have such a belief or you do not.

Does not the "ism" suffix mean that both are belief systems?

Doesn't this mean that Atheism is the belief in no-god?

 

[Yoink]

Does not the "ism" suffix mean that both are belief systems?

Doesn't this mean that Atheism is the belief in no-god?

One could certainly define it that way--but then it would not be a tenable position, and it would be a definition that would exclude the majority of atheists (myself included). I don't "believe" in the absence of gods, I simply am yet to see any persuasive evidence of a god.

 

[Apology]

Let me give you an analogy that will make it easier for all of you to let me choose my own beliefs and what I want to call my beliefs. Imagine I said I was bisexual. You are all saying that I must be gay or I must be straight, because there are no bisexuals. If I live with an opposite-sex partner but have gay sex sometimes, I'm a "weak heterosexual" rather than bisexual. If I live with a same-sex partner but occasionally have straight sex, I'm a "weak gay". If I try to say that I'm not a "weak" anything, I'm bisexual, then everyone goes back to square 1, insisting that there's no such thing as bisexuality. Trying to define bisexuality out of existence doesn't make it go away.

If you have trouble with my agnosticism, tough noogies. I don't need to be recruited to either side. I'm not confused and looking for enlightenment. I came to this decision 20 years ago and have not seen one whit of evidence either way in 20 years to change my mind. Bring me evidence of God or evidence of God's non-existence and I'll change my mind. Neither theism or atheism can provide any proof of their position whatsoever. I have no reason to join either group in spite of their protestations.

 

[JanisChambers]

I think there really shouldn't be a difference. To me the word "atheist" is about as tenuous as any scientifically held belief. The evidence is strongly in it's corner, but with everything, nothing is stated with a dogmatic sort of certainty. So I can easily call myself both Atheist and technically agnostic, but seeing as a scientific outlook on everything is agnostic, what is the point?

In other words a Scientist isn't so certain about evolution that significant evidence to the contrary couldn't sway them, in fact the scientific method has everything to do with constantly challenging that they have come to know. So no scientist could say they are evolutionists because they hold some sort of mystical certainty, but that the evidence holds strong towards that conclusion.

To sum it all up, I don't call myself an atheist because I have some arrogant certainty, but because given the evidence I have to work with, that is my current conclusion. To say I'm agnostic, which is a fancy way of saying "I don't know", will not get you anywhere. Of *course* you don't know, all you can do is work with what you have and expand the limits of your knowledge always identifying where your limit currently lands. Scientists will keep looking, but if we start with a conclusion (theism or even an implied former theism) then the ultimate conclusion will not be scientific.

 

[the PC apeman]

Does not the "ism" suffix mean that both are belief systems?

Doesn't this mean that Atheism is the belief in no-god?

Linguistic attempts can work both ways. Try this: the a in atheism means without. Without theism. Without a belief system (of the theistic variety).

 

[juniper_ann]

I'm not sure about "logically defensible", but here are Dawkins' levels:

1. Strong Theist - 100% probability of God (I know there is a God!)
2. De facto Theist - Very high, but < 100% probability of God
3. Technically agnostic- leaning towards theism, higher than 50% probability of God
4. Impartial agnostic - exactly 50% probability of God
5. Technically atheist - leaning towards atheism, less than 50% probability of God
6. De facto atheist - Very low, but > 0% probability of God
7. Strong atheist - 0% probability of God (I know there is no God!)

Dawkins argues most people you would consider an atheist are actually De facto atheists (6) - it is probably the highest a skeptic would or should consider but (7) was included with (1) for symmetry. However, there seem to be quite a few people that do fall into (1).

Now, with these categories, can you say any are logically defensible? Based on evidence, I personally consider 6 to be really the only logically defensible position.

But that's just me

I'm a 6 as far as the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god goes, but, given the wide variety of concepts that have been labeled "god(s)" throughout history, I'm a 4 if you include all possible definitions of god. I have absolutely no idea whether somewhere, somehow, something exists that someone might call a god.

Linguistic attempts can work both ways. Try this: the a in atheism means without. Without theism. Without a belief system (of the theistic variety).

I went to a kegger last weekend, at which the topic of religion came up. I am trying to imagine myself explaining to my fellow partiers that I am an a-THEIST, not an a-THE-ist. Even in my imagination, it's not working out very well.

 

[Trakar]

One could certainly define it that way--but then it would not be a tenable position, and it would be a definition that would exclude the majority of atheists (myself included). I don't "believe" in the absence of gods, I simply am yet to see any persuasive evidence of a god.

You mean it would be untenable to what you assert or have always thought. The perception of a lack of evidence for, and the belief that this is a genuine and legitimate perception/reflection of reality, is from my perspective "a" agnosticism (which itself is still a belief system). "A"gnosticism is the belief that man is incapable of knowing.

 

[the PC apeman]

I went to a kegger last weekend, at which the topic of religion came up. I am trying to imagine myself explaining to my fellow partiers that I am an a-THEIST, not an a-THE-ist. Even in my imagination, it's not working out very well.

Obviously it wasn't a Greek kegger.

 

[Trakar]

Linguistic attempts can work both ways. Try this: the a in atheism means without. Without theism. Without a belief system (of the theistic variety).

No, the "ism" is a complete term modifier, indicating belief system or practice (that's part of being a suffix)

Linguistics possesses pretty clear and well established formulae, picking and choosing applications against those norms, is generally frowned upon.

 

[the PC apeman]

No, the "ism" is a complete term modifier, indicating belief system or practice (that's part of being a suffix)

Linguistics possesses pretty clear and well established formulae, picking and choosing applications against those norms, is generally frowned upon.

Then perhaps you could point to or coin a word that means "without a theistic belief system"?

 

[Yoink]

Let me give you an analogy that will make it easier for all of you to let me choose my own beliefs and what I want to call my beliefs. Imagine I said I was bisexual. You are all saying that I must be gay or I must be straight, because there are no bisexuals. If I live with an opposite-sex partner but have gay sex sometimes, I'm a "weak heterosexual" rather than bisexual. If I live with a same-sex partner but occasionally have straight sex, I'm a "weak gay". If I try to say that I'm not a "weak" anything, I'm bisexual, then everyone goes back to square 1, insisting that there's no such thing as bisexuality. Trying to define bisexuality out of existence doesn't make it go away.

You're definitely not understanding my point. I'm not asking you to "admit you're really a god-denying atheist." I'm suggesting that there is no philosophically sound distinction between the position that calls itself "agnostic" (in most cases) and the position that calls itself "atheist" (in most cases) and that therefore one or other of the terms is useless (I would vote for getting rid of agnosticism because it can't even distinguish atheists from theists, and because it is the more recently invented term).

You can give me a good, perfectly serviceable account of the differences between straight, bisexual, and gay. But you can't give me a good, perfectly serviceable account of the philosophical difference between theist, agnostic and atheist (or, if you can, I do wish you would).

If you have trouble with my agnosticism, tough noogies. I don't need to be recruited to either side. I'm not confused and looking for enlightenment. I came to this decision 20 years ago and have not seen one whit of evidence either way in 20 years to change my mind. Bring me evidence of God or evidence of God's non-existence and I'll change my mind. Neither theism or atheism can provide any proof of their position whatsoever. I have no reason to join either group in spite of their protestations.

Again, you miss my point. I'm an atheist. I also firmly believe that it would be impossible to provide evidence of god's non-existence (that is "god" in general, as opposed to some specific god). Therefore the cry "bring me evidence of god's non-existence" merely shows that there is a terminological confusion about the meaning of the word "atheist." Either I'm not an atheist (and no clear-thinking person is) or you are. Which do you think, and why?

And please, please do understand--I'm not asking you to change your beliefs--I'm asking you to provide a logically consistent account of those beliefs that will aid in sorting out what seems to me to be a terminological confusion.

 

[GreNME]

The problem with the "well, are you agnostic about unicorns?" question is that it appears to be (and, obviously, often is) simply an insult directed at religious belief ("believing in God is just as silly as believing in unicorns"). But if you ignore that side of it for a moment and just concentrate on the epistemological point it might be more clarifying.

What I'm saying is that you have to ignore that for such a question to not seem absurd.

The argument I'm making is that neither atheists nor agnostics--according to any definition of the positions that would be logically consistent--should "feel a need to make a choice." Atheists don't "choose" not to believe in God, they simply say "no evidence of the existence of a God has been presented." (Obviously there are real-world self-described "atheists" who do in fact say "there is no God"--but my point is that they are occupying an indefensible position. It is clearly impossible for them to disprove the existence of any god who, by definition, gives no evidence of his existence--such as the Deist god.) If that is the case, then, what possible philosophical purpose does the term "agnostic" serve? It doesn't name a coherent, logically tenable position that is separate from another coherent logically tenable position that could be termed "atheism."

Sure it does, because there are theists who can also be agnostic. The "problem" most arguments about agnosticism I've seen have is that they don't fit the binary claim of theism or atheism. I don't see that as a problem, because a religion like Buddhism has a similar structure and yet still exists as a relevant philosophical state. Basically, I'm saying a metaphor for why agnosticism is a logically tenable position separate from (but not exclusive of) atheism already exists in the religious belief of Buddhism.

Yes, there are theist Buddhists and atheist Buddhists. My contention is that it offers no useful distinction to suggest that there could also be "agnostic Buddhists." If you believe that it does, it would be really helpful if you would define "atheist" and "agnostic" so that they are distinct but both coherent and valid positions.

I think the Dawkins example is an acceptable one in its simplicity. "Validity" is going to vary depending on the position of the person interpreting it, though.

Oh, p.s., a small point: "reductio ad absurdum" isn't a logical fallacy, it's a type of argument. It's a method of demonstrating that an argument is absurd by showing that it entails absurd consequences.

Not in this case it isn't, because it is appealing to ridicule. The absurd reduction is the mechanism to reach the appeal to ridicule.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Let me give you an analogy that will make it easier for all of you to let me choose my own beliefs and what I want to call my beliefs. Imagine I said I was bisexual. You are all saying that I must be gay or I must be straight, because there are no bisexuals. If I live with an opposite-sex partner but have gay sex sometimes, I'm a "weak heterosexual" rather than bisexual. If I live with a same-sex partner but occasionally have straight sex, I'm a "weak gay". If I try to say that I'm not a "weak" anything, I'm bisexual, then everyone goes back to square 1, insisting that there's no such thing as bisexuality. Trying to define bisexuality out of existence doesn't make it go away.

Your analogy fails. Being attracted to membes of the opposite sex does not preclude being attracted to members of the same sex. Believing in god precludes not beliving in god. To do both (simultaneously) is logically impossible. So, you either are a theist or you are an atheist. There is no possibility of a middle ground. Of course, you may call yourself whatever you choose, Humpty-Dumpty.

 

[Yoink]

You mean it would be untenable to what you assert or have always thought. The perception of a lack of evidence for, and the belief that this is a genuine and legitimate perception/reflection of reality, is from my perspective "a" agnosticism (which itself is still a belief system). "A"gnosticism is the belief that man is incapable of knowing.

"incapable of knowing" in what sense? Incapable of knowing anything at all? I'd have thought the good old term "pyrrhonian skepticism" covers that--it would just be confusing to use "agnosticism" for that position.

Or do you mean specifically that you "know" that there is an "unknowable" god? That seems to me to be an incoherent position. How could you possibly know such a thing? What evidence could you point to support the claim that a knowable god could not exist? Again, this is just a particular species of theism--belief in the unknowable god.

 

[Apology]

And please, please do understand--I'm not asking you to change your beliefs--I'm asking you to provide a logically consistent account of those beliefs that will aid in sorting out what seems to me to be a terminological confusion.

An atheist "lacks a belief in God." I do not lack a belief in God, I simply do not know if there is one.

A theist believes that God exists. I do not believe God exists, rather, I simply do not know if God exists.

 

[NeilC]

An atheist "lacks a belief in God." I do not lack a belief in God, I simply do not know if there is one.

If you don't know if there is one then you lack a belief in it by definition.

 

[Irony]

Then perhaps you could point to or coin a word that means "without a theistic belief system"?

And by FSM, if you say non-theist I'm going to slap you with a trout.

 

[Apology]

If you don't know if there is one then you lack a belief in it by definition.

I strongly feel that there might be one so that hardly qualifies as a "lack of belief".

 

[Irony]

An atheist "lacks a belief in God." I do not lack a belief in God, I simply do not know if there is one.

A theist believes that God exists. I do not believe God exists, rather, I simply do not know if God exists.

"I do not lack a belief in God"
"I do not believe God exists"

I'm not trying to be rude, but surely you see where our confusion is coming from.