C’mon, you’ve spent enough time around here and should know better than this.
An atheist is one without the belief that deities exist. Atheism is not “a belief, just like any other belief”; it’s the lack of one belief among many.
One who is without belief in gods can admit that with sufficient evidence for His/their existence, he will become a believer and still currently be an atheist.
Those aren’t general definitions at all. An atheist is one without belief in deities. For most atheists that I know it is based on lack of evidence, not because they believe “there is a **proof of absence **(of god)”.
Your definition of agnostic is generally a definition of ‘atheist’.
Okay, some clarification of my original post seems to be in order.
Agnosticism is functionally no different from atheism as it applies to a study of the possibility of the existence of God, or His nature. There may be a subtle difference in philosophy, but in the end all an agnostic is saying is “I’m not dealing in absolutes. I don’t see the world in black and white. I dont so rigidly define everything,” a haughty, superior attitude on its face.
If you claim to be agnostic as a “belief system”, you’ve arrived at your conclusion in essentially the exact same way that nearly all atheists have. You’ve seen what theists offer as proof of the existence/nature of God, and you have rejected them as too weak to support the conclusions that were drawn.
An atheist believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
An agnostic believes there is not sufficient evidence to support a notion of God.
So what’s the point of agnosticism? The word is less emotionally loaded than “atheism”, and invites less criticism, but why would that concern us? It shouldn’t.
Interesting, I consider agnostics to be a fuzzy area between the other two extremes of Religion and Atheism. However, as many agnostics don’t believe in any churches being right, I can see lumping us closer to Atheist, I just don’t think Hard Atheist would really agree.
I am glad you see some principle in admitting we don’t know enough. Too many people on either side see it as wishy-washy, dishonest or this new one “semantic pain in the ass”.
Thank you,
Jim
Agnosticism isn’t “I don’t know if gods exist”. It’s “It’s impossible to know if gods exist.” It’s not a statement of belief about the existsnce of gods so much as a statement about the availability of evidence of existence of gods.
Being a different sort of belief, agnosticism does not contradict either atheism or theism. If you say “I can’t be sure, but I don’t think there are any gods”, then you’re both agnostic and atheistic. If you say “I’m pretty sure there are no gods”, then you’re simply atheistic; if you say “You can’t know whether there are god, so I’m reserving my opinion”, then you’re simply agnostic. An agnostic theist would say “I believe in a god or gods, but have no reason to; no such information is available.”
Now, if you’re theistic because you believe you have seen evidence that a god exists, then you’re not an agnostic, because you believe that you’ve found evidence which imparts knowledge about the existence of a god. Agnostic have found no compelling evidence for a god, but cannot be certain of godly nonexistence and are unable to ignore the massive amount of unsearchable areas where a god could theoretically be hiding enough to assert that a god doesn’t actually exist, hidden away someplace.
When dealing with witches and peanut butter monsters, you can accumulate enough evidence to become reasonably certain of the negative. (You don’t need absolute certainty since such certainty is generally unavailable in life, just reasonable certainty.) You can watch the vents or the peanut butter, personally or via cameras, checking for dust or whatever, and determine to your satisfaction that there are no monsters crawling around there. For witches, you can study enough cases and find likely and plausible other explanations, or fail to find supporting proof of witchery, until you feel that you’ve checked enough of the supposed cases to be fairly sure that there’s probably not some valid case you’ve missed.
Gods, though, are another matter. Putting aside those that supposedly live on top of mountains or in the core of the earth or other such examinable places, it’s quite common for gods to be described as living ‘elsewhere’, outside of the observable universe. Now, it’s quite hard to observe the areas outside the observable universe, so we can’t even start to check around the places where gods might be hiding to see if there are any there. Similarly, the supposed actions of gods on earth are commonly described as leaving no other detectable traces, and often as looking a lot like other, ordinary events, and/or turning up in the few areas we still have a spotty understand of, like the human emotions or mind. Again, the slippery evasiveness with which gods are attributed typically make it impossible to conclusively eliminate the possibility that there’s some god skulking around doing things ‘undercover’. Agnosticism is what happens when you determine that the limits on your knowledge exemplified by these sorts of things makes it impossible to reach a firm conclusion.
Personally, I’m atheistic about the Christian god and various other specific gods (for the usual many and obvious reasons), but agnostic about ‘other’ more subtle or noninterfering gods which may or may not exist. In other words, I get tied up in the unavailability of information about such gods and have thus decided that one can never be certain about their existence or nonexistence.
Really, despite several agnostic saying they don’t believe for sure there is not a God(s) or Divine Being(s) you still think we are identical in thoughts to Atheist who insist there is no God(s) or Divine Being(s). I don’t think we grok these terms the same way.
Jim
I’ve been around here for a long time (and a lurker for a long time before that)…and I still disagree. On this subject (as well as many others) I haven’t gotten around to drinking the kool aid…yet.
I don’t think an athiest is one without belief in god…I think an athiest is one who believes there is no god. Again, its a subtle difference. And I think that this belief is simply that…a belief. I grant that its got more basis (due to the lack of proof) than some beliefs…but IMHO its still just a belief. YMMV.
The point however is that there ARE differences, and not simply ones of semantics between athiests and agnostics.
I don’t think so. I think an athiest who says that there MIGHT be a god, or that there is currently insufficient evidence for a god, or that the proof and nature of god is not assertainable with our current understanding of the universe, etc etc, is not an athiest…s/he is an agnostic.
-XT
That’s ridiculous. Theism is also “a study of the possibility of the existence of God, or His nature”. Does that make theism functionally no different from atheism and agnosticism?
Agnosticism is functionally different from atheism for all the reasons given by everyone in this thread. Theists can be agnostic.
And you see that as a subtle difference from atheism?
Maybe in your experiences. I don’t encounter agnostics talking about how things are unknowable and acting superior admitting ignorance.
What definition of agnostic are you using that precludes an agnostic from being a theist?
To define something. If there weren’t people who claim to know that God/gods do/don’t exist, then the word wouldn’t be necessary.
But I think that answer is incomplete and lacks the conclusion each comes to.
Atheist: “There is insufficient evidence to conclude the existence of God, or make any assertions about the likely nature of God, therefore I conclude there is no God.”
Agnostic: “There is insufficient evidence to conclude the existence of God, or make any assertions about the likely nature of God, therefore his existance is unknown and no conclusion can be made.”
Just to prove another difference between many agnostics and Atheist, I am with xtisme on this. Believing that there is no God(s) as there is no proof of a God(s) looks like a belief system to me.
I ask, prove to me there is no God. The Atheist Logic is as lost on me as much as claims of Faith are lost on me.
There is a poster on this board that claims to have interacted with their God. I find it far more likely to be a chemical reaction in his particular brain. We will never convince each other one way or another. It is not possible to do so.
Jim
Defining atheists as they are commonly defined is drinking the kool aid?
Why? Do you have your own special dictionary that says atheists can’t just be without belief in gods?
I think you like making up your own definition for ‘atheist’ so you can better debate against it.
All common definitions I’ve ever read don’t preclude one from being an atheist if he simply is without belief in gods.
a- without
theism- belief in the existence of a god or gods
My father is what I call a “hard agnostic”. As I understand it, he believes there’s something out there, but it isn’t his place to define it or name it. It’s also something the existence of which can’t be proven by any means currently available to us. He’s been that way for at least 50 years now, and he’s not likely to change thus the adjective “hard”. He certainly wouldn’t consider an atheist, nor is he interested in being " more palatable to the mainstream".
I agree wholeheartely with Mr. Moto who said, "It seems quite intellectually honest to me to admit that there are things you cannot know, or do not know for whatever reason. " From what I’ve read from many atheists around here, they are as certain there is no god as I am that there is a god. I may not be able to prove his existence, but they can’t his non-existence to my satisfaction, not given some of my experiences. I regard agnoticism as an honest position. Indeed, by admitting that we cannot prove the existence or non-existence of god using current scientific methods, it may be a more honest position than mine or those of some atheists.
I would distinguish agnostic into three categories:
Soft agnostic - the religion (or lack thereof) that I grew up with no longer suffices for me and I have not found one that fits better. I may not ever find it, but I might. It’s a transitional label for most of these people and is often shed for another (a)theistic one as time passes.
Hard agnostic - nobody is likely to find evidence that conclusively proves the existence or non-existence of gods, so I’ll just deal with the grey world on my own terms and leave the question open. Not looking, not firmly conclusive one way or another.
Apatheistic - This entire debate is stupid and I don’t really care one way or another. Sometimes apatheists continue to identify with their original belief system, but can often be observed in categories such as “Christmas and Easter Catholics” and “Cultural Jews”. The entire issue is, ultimately, not as pressing to them as the rest of society, so they’ll happily nod along to whatever and not give it a moment’s thought.
As far as the dicussion of “atheism is a belief system”, I would say that I am an athiest with regards to all the gods I have heard of; that is, I feel comfortable in saying that I don’t believe any of them exist. I am agnostic with regards to all gods I haven’t heard of, since obviously I don’t have enough information to make a guess yet. So basically I would say that I don’t believe in God, Allah, and so on, but i’m not willing to say that no gods exist, period.
Well, there’s your problem. That’s not it. Your athiest one, yes, but the agnostic isn’t saying “There’s not enough information to support a notion of God”, they’re saying “I don’t know whether there is, or can be, enough information to support a notion of God”. The atheist says there’s not enough to data to say yes; the agnostic says there’s not enough data to make even that judgement. Look at it like this;
--------------- Is there enough information to support the existence of a god?
Theist ------------------------- Yes!
Atheist ------------------------ No!
Agnostic -------------- I don’t know. Perhaps we can’t know.
Being an agnostic is as far away from being a theist or polytheist and so on than it is from being an atheist. It makes no statement for or against gods.
Does believing that there is no Santa Claus look like a belief system to you?
This is a misunderstanding of the nuances of atheism and the definition of agnostic. What you’re actually describing here is a weak atheist: if evidence were to appear that proved, to me, that there is a god, God, Rama, Peanut Butter or Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I would alter my conclusions based on available evidence and become a believer - however, that evidence remains utterly absent, so therefore I conclude there is nothing. Whereas a strong atheist would dismiss such evidence even if it appeared: if the Peanut Butter Monster were to appear in front of him chanting “nom nom nom”, the strong atheist would dismiss this as probable hallucination, etc.
Definiting it as its commonly defined on the Straightdope and then asking me why, though I’ve been here a long time I don’t ‘know better’. Besides, it was a joke.
Certainly…you don’t?
However, how about this non-xtisme defintion from Dictionary.com?
Well sure. It would be rather hard for me to keep up on this board if I didn’t make stuff up and define things in my own terms. What would be the fun of that?
All common definitions you’ve read? What? You are using your own anecdotal impressions here? I think you are making your own definitions for…
Ok, just kidding. You will note that I said YMMV, ehe? MY definition of atheism was as I stated. YMMV. Regardless IMHO atheism does not equal agnosticism. Nor do I think that agnostics are simply atheists in disguise, or who just like a good semantic wrangle…or are ‘goofy’.
-XT
An agnostic wouldn’t say he doesn’t know or “perhaps we can’t know”.
It should look more like this:
Is there enough information to support the existence of a god?
Agnostic -------------- No. A god’s existence is unknowable.
Surely “perhaps we can’t know” is the same as “unknowable”? The only difference is in the certainty that you can be certain, if that makes sense.
Which as I stated, does not preclude one from being an atheist if he simply is without belief in gods. Disbelief is “the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true”- also provided by dictionary.com.