This may be more of a GD, but I’m hoping there’s a factual answer to this question. I’m not attempting to promote my personal philosophy, nor to put down anyone else’s, I’d just like to know what I am classified as.
In the past, I’ve identified myself as an atheist, but recently some people have alleged that I’m an agnostic, so I figured the SDMB might have an answer.
Here’s my way of thinking: I don’t have faith. I don’t believe in god because I’ve never seen any proof that one (or many) exists (the same way I don’t believe in unicorns, since I haven’t seen any evidence that they exist, as the analogy goes.) I’m highly skeptical that I’ll ever see any evidence that one does exist, but I cannot totally dismiss the possibility, since I can’t predict the future.
You’re definitely agnostic. Atheists say “there is no God”. You don’t do that, you just say that right now there’s no evidence that leads you to believe a God exists. This may change as new evidence is introduced. That’s an agnostic, no questions asked.
That would be more of an agnostic. Agnostics, while doubting (even strongly) the existence of a god or gods, are not entirely closed to the idea. Atheists (such as I), on the other hand, firmly refute the existence of any deities and don’t accept the possibility that they may be wrong.
According to this site, you would be classified an agnostic athiest: You’d very skeptical, but not totally closed to the idea if suitable evidence presents itself.
Agnostic athiest is a subset of a plain ol’ agnostic, so that’s what you are if you want to be more general.
Alternatively, I have seen the spectrum established as Strongly Atheistic, Weakly Atheistic, and Agnostic, where (if I understand the distinctions correctly), you would be in the Weakly Atheistic sector.
Under those criteria, the Strongly Atheistic person asserts that there is no god.
The Weakly Atheistic does not believe in god, but does not insist that god cannot exist.
The Agnostic states that we cannot know whether a god does or does not exist and neither believes nor disbelieves.
(If the term is not “weakly” but another, I apologize. That is my memory of the terminology; I am not trying to tell people they are strong or weak persons.)
I agree with Hauky. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
This is the way I look at it. Intellectually I am an agnostic. But since most people define themselves by what they believe, my belief that there is no God makes me an atheist.
Hence,
I am an atheist who doesn’t claim perfect knowledge (agnostic).
I think that it is appropriate in General Questions to remind people of two logical fallacies, one of which, Affirmation of the Consequent, seems to be common among creationist theists and the other, Denial of the Antecedent, among strong atheists. An agnostic would be immune to both.
Fiddlesticks; you’re an atheist. Only idiots and the insane are so wedded to their beliefs that they can’t distinguish between faith and knowledge.
When I was a christian, I knew that I could not prove the existence of God; “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” As an atheist, I know that I am equally incapable of proving the non-existence of god or gods. That inability is as immaterial to my belief now as it was to my faith then.
Agnostics don’t know, they believe they can’t know, and their not knowing is at the center of their belief. Atheists don’t know, and intelligent atheists know that they can’t know, but the conviction that there is no god is at the center of their belief.
No, I’ve never subscribed to the belief that since God has never appeared to me, he must not exist. I’ve never seen a black hole either, but I do believe they exist. My reasons are more along the lines of Occam’s Razor type reasoning. to me it seems far simpler and more logical to explain the creation of the vast universe via some form of the Big Bang theory, than trying to detail just exactly how some omnipotent creator might have done so in seven days. But, now I’ve wandered into GD territory, so I’ll stop there.
I’m an Atheist. I acknowledge no gods. If one gives me proof of his/her existance, I’ll change my mind. My wife calls herself an Agnostic, as she remains open to the possibility of god. I think this is a bit silly, but it makes her more comfortable to lable herself that way.
Atheist literally means “without theism” so if you live without religion, you are an Atheist. Most people would consider you an Agnostic, as you don’t go around claiming to be sure there is no god. But agnostic really doesn’t mean anything.
Most Atheist are willing to change thier minds, if evidence shows up. Many Atheist are willing to say"I may be wrong". Agnostic is just a lable that softens the blow to some people, and I can understand why people use it.
I might be wrong, there may be a god(dess), but untill I get better proof, I’m an Atheist.
I don’t know if we’ll be able to keep this out of Great Debates or not…
I would say that many people who call themselves atheists that I know of (including many on this board) reject the idea that atheists positively assert that there is no God or gods; rather, many–perhaps most–self-identified atheists say atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. Although “atheist” and “agnostic” are terms which overlap a good bit, agnostic may include a sense of claiming that not only do we not know if there is a God, but that we cannot know if there is a God, which definitely doesn’t sound like the OP’s position.
I would also point out that one person may variously assert positive denial of the existence of some gods (or of God by some definitions), based on what they consider to be sufficient evidence or logical argument against the existence of an entity or entities by that definition; while asserting only that they have no seen no evidence for, and therefore have no belief in, such an entity with respect to God or gods by other definitions.
Well Qwerty do you ever and I mean EVER, say in your darkest moments, when you watched the planes hitting the towers, do you say “Oh my God have mercy”.
If you never turn to the idea of god for any sort of comfort then you are an atheist. If you even occasionally let the thought wander into your head but mostly do not, you are agnostic.
“Agnostic” does not, historically speaking, mean an atheist whose lack of faith occasionally wavers. (Your definition could potentially make a very large proportion of the population into agnostics. Is a Christian who, in her darkest moments, momentarily doubts the existence of God therefore also an agnostic?)
Although the meaning of the term has certainly shifted and changed over time, agnostic was originally defined to mean one who asserts that the question of the existence of God is essentially unknowable. An agnostic who in some moment of stress (or delight) briefly thought “There is a God!” would therefore be abandonding her agnosticism, at least temporarily.
I have no compelling reason to believe their is a golf course someplace in the galaxy next door.
Now, it could be that there is one over there. Nobody has proven to me that there isn’t.
This is pretty much my stance on the whole god thing. In general I don’t bother my belief system with questions on things I have no good reason to believe in, such as gold courses in other galaxies or an omnipotent, omniscent, and omnibenevolent flying person. I dismiss them out of hand. But sure if you take me to the gold course or show me god I’ll gladly pick up my clubs or start praying as the case may be.
Apologies for a bit of a hijack - but I prefer to consider myself a Humanist - defining myself in terms of what I believe, rather than an atheist - defining myself in terms of what others believe but I reject.
Another approach is to think of yourself as a nontheist - the entire issue of theism or not is irrelevant to living and enjoying your current life.
As I understand it, much of the thinking that went into the drafting of the initial Humanist Manifesto back in the 1930s reflected an attempt to set forth a positive alternative to faith- based religions, under the impression that atheism by itself was too lacking to serve as such. (Doesn’t seem to have been too successful! I’m sure there will be a huge number of “converts” following the imminent issuance of HM III! Yeah, we’ll be turning them away at the doors.)
Yeah, well, or you might get manhattan–and I don’t know that you’d like that.
There have been any number of threads about the existence or non-existence of God, and Great Debates is always open if anyone wants to start another. It’s probably a lost cause, but I don’t see why it should be impossible to have a reasonably fact-based discussion of how the various terms are used. Imagine if the OP was trying to figure out if he was a Presbyterian. Does he have to be a 5-point Calvinist? Can he believe in adult (“believer’s”) baptism by immersion rather than infant baptism by sprinking? What if he thinks churches should have bishops? The question isn’t whether any of those doctrines or views is right, but what “Presbyterianism” means and what is or isn’t compatible with it.
While I see your point, particularly in reference to your second paragraph (not quoted) reagarding evidence from authority as against logical proof, let me construct an analogy:
I’ve seen a lot of posts on this board from Scotticher. It was my pleasure recently to have several phone conversations with a woman who purported to be her, and to receive mail signed by someone purporting to be her and to have come from her return address. But I have never met the lady, and have no overt physical evidence that the posts, the calls, and the mail were actually from a person behind that screen name. Do I have knowledge of, or faith in, her as a person? And if I allege that I have known God in prayer and that He has responded to my needs, how does that differ from what Scotti has done?
You share the same point of a view as a scientist contemplating the existence of unicorns: you can’t believe in them since there is no proof or even indirect evidence, but if one was presented to you, you would probably change your mind.
Regardless of what many other people haved posted (and I’m guessing they are neither atheists nor agnostics, since they don’t seem to know what they are talking about), you can be squarely classified as an Atheists. More specifically, a Weak-Atheist (as opposed to Strong-Atheist, which is what most religious folk think of when they scream “ATHEISTIC EVIL!!!”).
