Agnostics--could you more precisely state your position?

[Czarcasm]

@Otara

“Atheists: “The odds are so ridiculously absurd of a specific being existing we’d have to give each of the infinite lotto ticket numbers an ‘ism’, therefore, accept the null hypothesis””

An agnostic would ask ‘how can you claim to know the odds’? That might work with Christianity or specific religions with detailed claims, but doesnt really work when it comes to more open-ended ‘is there a creator’ type questions.

Otara

And an atheist might reply “Why are you even bothering to consider the question at all when there is no evidence to weigh on either side?”

[Princhester]

@The_Hamster_King

Agnosticism is merely a form of special pleading for theism.

Or, I think, often could be well characterised as a form of special pleading against atheism.

The evidence for, firstly, Russell’s teapot and, secondly, a god is the same but an agnostic:

• when it comes to the first, would be happy to define themselves as someone who has no belief in the existence of the thing, but

• when it comes to the second, would prefer to define themselves as someone who thinks no one can be sure that the thing does not exist.

The reasons are cultural IMHO.

[TripleFail]

Being agnostic have no practical use in real life. If I understand the word correctly it mean there is evidence for or against deity so judgment is reserved. Only problem is religious text often dictate how people should run their everyday life its impossible to reserve judgment. Should I refuse to work on sabbath or not? You either do or don’t. In that case the atheist and the agnostic would come to the same decision anyway.

[Princhester]

These sorts of arguments can end up meandering down some extremely rarified and highly academic paths. You make a very pragmatic point, TripleFail. I like it.

[martu]

@xtisme

But in the end I’m simply not an atheist. That label just doesn’t fit with my own conceptions of myself, just like ‘conservative’ doesn’t fit with my conceptions of myself…so, I don’t self choose to adopt that label. Agnostic DOES fit my conceptions of self, and it’s a label I’m comfortable with self identifying with

Do you believe a God or Gods exists? This is a yes or no answer and how you answer it will determine whether you are an Atheist or not, your distaste for the label really has no bearing on the matter. One can be an Agnostic and an Atheist or indeed an Agnostic and a Deist\Theist, it’s not one or the other.

[Gyrate]

@jjimm

I think a lot of self-declared agnostics in this thread need to look up the definition of ‘agnostic’, then immediately look up the definition of ‘weak atheist’.

Then post their revised self-declaration.

Bah.

Here’s my standard statement on the matter:

I believe that there is an infinitessimal but non-zero probability of some sort of deity, deities or other sentient supernatural forces existing, but as this existence cannot be demonstrated through conventional means and as this existence is not required to explain the various workings of the universe it seems sensible to assume the non-existence of such force or forces for all practical purposes without requiring a position of absolute non-existence.

Call it what you want.

[jjimm]

@Gyrate

Bah.

Here’s my standard statement on the matter:Call it what you want.

Weak atheism, same as me.

ETA: I think the problem is with the word “weak”. I think we should go for “grande atheism” and “deluxe atheism” to make the term more popular.

[martu]

@Gyrate

Bah.

Here’s my standard statement on the matter:Call it what you want.

I’ll call that something I can agree with.

I acknowledge there is a chance God(s) exist but I act as if they don’t, how you act is way more important than what you believe or think you believe.

[Gyrate]

@jjimm

Weak atheism, same as me.

ETA: I think the problem is with the word “weak”. I think we should go for “grande atheism” and “deluxe atheism” to make the term more popular.

I’d prefer “non-assholish atheism” to distinguish it from the other kind.

[rat_avatar]

@jjimm

Weak atheism, same as me.

ETA: I think the problem is with the word “weak”. I think we should go for “grande atheism” and “deluxe atheism” to make the term more popular.

This is also sometimes Agnostic atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[Czarcasm]

I have trouble with the “I’m an agnostic because we can’t know whether or not there is a God” response because it looks like a concession without evidence that God is too powerful to be discovered. If you aren’t certain as to whether the deity even exists or not, why do you believe that he has this attribute?

[jjimm]

Some good explanations of their atheism from notable British atheists, ranging from “non-asshole” to “full fat”. The ones I find the most pithy (my emphasis below):

@Peter Atkins

In part because there is no evidence for a God (sentimental longing, desperation, ignorance and angst are not evidence) and in part because science is showing that it is capable of answering all the questions that the religious have argued, without any evidence, require the activities of a God, I dismiss holy scripture as evidence. I also discount the argument that a majority of people in the world claim to be believers, because truth is not decided by majority vote.

I acknowledge the power of cultural conditioning, especially when it is larded on to the young and impressionable, and can even accept that there might be an evolutionary advantage in believing; but neither is an argument for the truth of the existence of a God. Moreover, the horrors of the world, both personal and societal, do not convince me that the creation is an act of infinite benevolence.

and

@Michael Shermer

In the past 10,000 years there have been roughly 10,000 religions and 1,000 different gods. What are the chances that one group of people discovered the One True God while everyone else believed in 9,999 false gods? A likelier explanation is that all gods and religion are socially and psychologically constructed. We created gods.

[FixMyIgnorance]

@Czarcasm

I have trouble with the “I’m an agnostic because we can’t know whether or not there is a God” response because it looks like a concession without evidence that God is too powerful to be discovered. If you aren’t certain as to whether the deity even exists or not, why do you believe that he has this attribute?

People can always define God to be outside of whatever we currently know. Even if we discovered a multiverse, and even if we discovered the mechanism behind it, and so forth, people may still want to put God behind everything. That very act of constantly moving the goalposts would make God, in this case, an unknowable concept by its definition.

But more generally:

Agnosticism

Agnostic atheism:

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Is what fits a vast majority of atheists IMO. These debates usually get nowhere in terms of trying to fit views within labels. I personally like to just remove the ambiguity and state my view – similar to the “call it what you want” post above. The label isn’t as important as what you mean it to say.

[dataguy]

What’s wrong with the simple, accepted, lexical definitions:

theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods
atheist=non-theist

gnostic - possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things
agnostic=non-gnostic

[Sitnam]

@Otara

“Atheists: “The odds are so ridiculously absurd of a specific being existing we’d have to give each of the infinite lotto ticket numbers an ‘ism’, therefore, accept the null hypothesis””

An agnostic would ask ‘how can you claim to know the odds’? That might work with Christianity or specific religions with detailed claims, but doesnt really work when it comes to more open-ended ‘is there a creator’ type questions.

Otara

Betting on Infinity does a better job answering your question than I ever could.

[XT]

[QUOTE=martu]
Do you believe a God or Gods exists? This is a yes or no answer and how you answer it will determine whether you are an Atheist or not, your distaste for the label really has no bearing on the matter. One can be an Agnostic and an Atheist or indeed an Agnostic and a Deist\Theist, it’s not one or the other.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve already addressed this. No, I don’t BELIEVE in a God or gods or other deities. I’m not, however, 100% sure that my believe reflects reality…i.e., there COULD be a God, gods or other deities or supernatural beings out there and I just don’t know about them. Uncertainty is pretty much the key difference. I’m uncertain…therefore I’m an agnostic. If I was 100% certain then I’d be an atheist.

My distaste for the label stems mostly from atheists railing against me on this seemingly simple point.

[QUOTE=bldysabba]
I call bullshit. Can you provide a cite please. I often hear this statement imputed to atheists, but I have yet to actually see it made by one. The statement always, or almost always, is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that god exists, hence it is useful to live your life by assuming there isn’t one, but that this position is open to change if convincing evidence is presented.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I’m on travel today, so posting from my iPad. If you REALLY want to know, simply do some searches in GD or the Pit (there was at least one memorable thread on this subject that I remember participating in the Pit…and several that were pretty much just like this one here in GD). Look up the poster called Der Trihs in those threads to get an example…there are more of them. Or, you could look at the OP claiming there is 0% chance of a Judeo-Christian type God…0% would pretty much mean that there is ‘no evidence whatsoever to indicate that god exists’, at least by my understanding of the use of ‘0%’.

To put it a different way, why does my statement that I’m an agnostic who doesn’t believe in God (etc etc) set off self styled atheists, if they essentially hold the same position that they believe in no deities by don’t know for sure if there are any? If I’m just making this up (which, frankly, is a pretty silly assertion on your part), why the rancor towards agnostics from atheists? Unless you are saying I’m just making that up as well…in which case I’d have to ask, have you been following along in THIS thread?

-XT

[Jas09]

@TripleFail

Being agnostic have no practical use in real life. If I understand the word correctly it mean there is evidence for or against deity so judgment is reserved. Only problem is religious text often dictate how people should run their everyday life its impossible to reserve judgment. Should I refuse to work on sabbath or not? You either do or don’t. In that case the atheist and the agnostic would come to the same decision anyway.

It has no use in practical day-to-day “how should I live?” sorts of ways. It is very useful in quieting the outrage from theist friends - for some reason they are much less outraged by agnostics than by atheists.

I think it’s because the agnostic leaves open the possibility that the theist is right, even though they allow no method for that to be proven and typically act as though the theist is wrong.

@xtisme

I’ve already addressed this. No, I don’t BELIEVE in a God or gods or other deities. I’m not, however, 100% sure that my believe reflects reality…i.e., there COULD be a God, gods or other deities or supernatural beings out there and I just don’t know about them. Uncertainty is pretty much the key difference. I’m uncertain…therefore I’m an agnostic. If I was 100% certain then I’d be an atheist.

That’s really not the definition of agnosticism. But at this point so many people use it as a substitute for the type of “weak” atheism you are describing that the battle is probably lost.

To determine whether you are agnostic you should ask yourself this question: “Do you believe that the existence of God can be known for certain?”

If the answer is Yes, then you are not agnostic. If the answer is No then you are agnostic. It really doesn’t have much bearing on the personal probability you assign to the existence of God - that determines where you are on the atheist/theist scale.

Quite a few people just use “agnostic” to mean “non-evangelical atheist” at this point. Or perhaps just “atheist that doesn’t want to piss of theists” or “atheist that isn’t 100% sure”. None of those things really track with the historical meaning of the word, but there ya go.

[Sitnam]

@rat_avatar

Worked quite hard to build up a straw-man there didn’t ya.

That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

@rat_avatar

I think the issue may be that you have a misunderstanding how broad the the term “agnostic” is.

I believe there is NO known evidence of any god, as I have stated before, and at this current time.

At no point has science ever said they have the answer and their understanding will never need to be adjusted.

Perhaps you’ll recall the Scientific method requires the following steps:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Because there has never been a god test or any reproducible experiments addressing the issue science doesn’t prove or disprove god, it simply doesn’t even comment on it. The null hypothesis remains: there is no god, and no amount of agnostic definition handwaving will change that. Ever.

[XT]

@FixMyIgnorance

It’s not like scientists are just idly sitting around speculating that things exist for no reason. It’s the math and testable science that has led to these things being good candidates for further venture/prediction.

Um…that’s EXACTLY what scientists have done, from time to time. Sit around and just idly speculate on things that aren’t explainable. Einstein sat around in a patent office thinking about gaps in Newtonian physics and speculating on what it would be like to be on a bus that is traveling near the speed of light. From that he was able to work out mathematical models and to test theories that supported them, but not all science is so linear.

Even now, they’re testing the Higgs for five sigma confidence levels. Can you say theists tests their claims with nearly this level of rigorous scrutiny? Hardly.

No, of course not. Theism isn’t science, and theists don’t attempt to find God or the gods through scientific methods (sometimes they try PSUDO-science, but that’s about it). I’m in no way making a comparison between the scientific method verse theism, since it’s a silly comparison IMHO…theism is about FAITH and BELIEF. The comparison I was making was one comparing atheists to theists and agnostics towards scientists wrt certainty. Ask a scientist if global warming is happening and the vast majority of them are going to say ‘there is good evidence that it’s happening, yet’. As them if they are certain and they are going to say ‘well, nothing is 100% certain…but there is strong evidence that it’s happening, yes’. Switch things around a bit and that’s pretty much the same answer I’m giving wrt God, i.e. there is no evidence that there is a God, but if you are looking for 100% certainty I don’t have it. Are the scientists pussies or lack conviction because they truthfully state that they don’t KNOW, with 100% certainty, something they are being asked? No…yet agnostics are put down for saying essentially the same thing about God. THAT’S the point I was trying (badly it seems) to get across.

Most atheists I know, even the vocal ones, do not argue that they KNOW God doesn’t exist. Most of the time, atheists argue that they simply lack the belief and need more evidence if they are to be convinced.

Which is pretty much the exact same thing I’ve argued. And yet, atheists, even ones in this thread, have felt the need to take me to task over it. Why is that, if our beliefs are exact the same. I mean, I don’t believe in God (despite assertions by one poster in this thread that I have a person God…or something). I argue that I lack the evidence to know, and would need mountains of the stuff to be convinced (hell, I doubt anything short of a personal visit by a God would do the trick…probably not even then, since I’d just think I was going insane or under the influence of mind altering drugs).

-XT

[Dangerosa]

Intellectual agnostic, emotional deist,

As an agnostic, I do not believe that anyone can know if god or gods exist. By its very definition, if a god decides to be unknowable, it is. Moreover, there are such a variety of concepts of what a deity may or may not be, that there it is difficult to define to exclusion.

Emotional deist, I like directing my hope and gratitude a direction. It’s comforting. That doesn’t mean that intellectually I accept god, it means emotionally I like to believe in some thing bigger than me.