Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive.

[Frank_apisa]

@PBear42

Frank, I’ve been following this thread and a couple others in which you participated, though I’ve only made one post so far and that one wasn’t directed to you. Now I’m going to attempt one.

Thank you for taking the time to do so.

First, I will say that I take you at your word that you don’t believe in God (or gods). It has occasionally been suggested that you’re trying to sneak the camel’s nose under the tent, but it’s pretty clear to me you are not. Rather, I take you at your word, that you’re just as agnostic with theists as you are with atheists.

I have been a very active agnostic for almost 5 decades now…and have had several articles and op ed pieces printed describing my agnosticism in newspapers throughout the years. I have participated in Internet discussions for well over a decade on the subject. I can assure you your trust in me is not misplaced. I am not a stealth theist…and frankly find it funny that during discussion on this over the years I have often been called both a stealth theist or an atheists by my debate opponents.

Second, I take your point that some atheists seem to be a good deal more certain than others that there is no God (from here on, I’ll leave as implied “or gods”). This often is described as soft vs. hard atheism. I’m a soft atheist. As such, I don’t claim to be able to prove God doesn’t exist. But I believe he does not.

Okay…and I have no problem with that. My point right along has been that it seems to me (not that I know, but that my guess is) that all people who describe themselves as atheists (weak or strong; soft or hard) either 1) assert there are no gods; 2) “believe: there are no gods; or 3) “believe” the evidence favors no gods over gods.

Most (not all, by any means) people who describe themselves as agnostics do not assert there are no gods; do not “believe” there are no gods; and do not “believe” the evidence favors no gods over gods.

FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN…I do not assert there are no gods; do not “believe” there are no gods; and do not “believe” the evidence favors no gods over gods…and I think the word “agnostic” properly applies to me. I also think it is presumptuous of atheist to insist that agnostics (particularly agnostics such as I) also have to identify ourselves as de facto atheists simply because we do not believe in gods. I would think it just as presumptuous for theists to insist that we agnostics also have to identify ourselves as de facto theists simply because we do not believe there are no gods.

I honestly hope that is clear…and that it is not perceived by you as capricious or arbitrary.

In fact, if I may: Are there any atheists here who see that as a valid point?

Third, ISTM that the difference between me and you, a self-identified agnostic, is fairly small. I feel little need, though, to insist you’re “really” an atheist. OTOH, I resist your (apparent) insistence that I’m “really” an agnostic.

Insofar as I made the comment “a better argument could be made that all atheists are agnostics”…I am sorry. I meant it as an ironic, funny statement that fell flat. I most assuredly am not insisting in any way that you are an agnostic. You are whatever you describe yourself to be in this regard…and I will accept it. I much prefer the term non-theist for these discussions, because then we don’t get sidetracked into this definitional stuff.

FWIW, in my early posts in religion threads on this board, I used to self-describe as “a strong agnostic or weak atheist depending on how one defines terms.” After reading several threads like this one, I concluded that dominant contemporary usage is that I’m a soft atheist and I decided it was simpler and less confusing just to go with that.

Fine with me…and I hope with everyone else.

Fourth, wherein lies that small difference, ISTM, is whether “absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” Plainly, you think not. I disagree. If someone claims astrology works, I ask for evidence. Absent any, I conclude it doesn’t . If someone tells me echinacea prevents colds, I ask for evidence. Absent any, I conclude it doesn’t. My skepticism about God’s existence is of the same type.

Whatever. We have a difference of opinion on the matter. I’ve stated my reasons for my take…and I cannot do any better than that.

Since you have given examples of your position, allow you my favorite: Are there any sentient beings living on the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol? There is absolutely no evidence whatever that there are. There is evidence that sentient beings live on our planet…and I guess an inference can be made that there are sentient beings elsewhere in the universe…but as to the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to our Sol…NOT ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Do you honestly consider that evidence of any kind that NO sentient beings exist on any of those planets?

Fifth, I’m at a loss to understand the substance of your point (as opposed to the semantics). If you’re saying atheists (weak or strong) should be open to the possibility that God exists, you’ll get no disagreement from me. But, then, I know of no atheists (of either stripe) who deny this. Even as strident an atheist as Richard Dawkins acknowledges it.

Not sure of your point here?

I certainly know of atheists who deny that…but I am more than willing to acknowledge that they are a small minority of atheists…and I certainly do not judge all atheists by that standard.

[Frank_apisa]

@FinnAgain

Nah, he got as far as admitting that the word means “without God or gods”, and then claimed that instead of talking about someone not having any belief in any God or gods, that it was… well, he never did define what the heck he thought that ‘without Gods’ meant other than to disagree with the simple fact that being without theism makes one an atheist and to be very insistent that it only meant “without God or gods”.

That is absolute blather.

What I said was the assertion that atheist came into being by adding a “a” to theist…which makes the meaning “without a belief in gods” is erroneous.

I also mentioned that atheism came into the English language before theism…which makes that etymology impossible.

The citation given by Doubless…bears all that out.

In Greek, the word “theos” means gods. Adding the “a” makes the word mean “without gods” not without a belief in gods.

From an etymological standpoint, claiming that anyone without a belief in gods is an atheist is as much a bit of nonsense as claiming anyone without a belief there are no gods…is a theist.

[Frank_apisa]

@DanBlather

Show some respect, the invisible cars created the universe. I don’t know that, but it can’t be ruled out. I’m keeping an open mind.

Actually, that was funny…and a clever remark.

Just wanted you to know I can appreciate a bit of humor when offered.

[Frank_apisa]

@Latro

And the only time I have to discuss God is in discussiond with theists and weak atheists that self descibe as agnostics.
Yet I am willing to discuss this God-thing.
You, however, are just evading having to answer. Why?

What have I evaded…other than this pathetic attempt at an insult about “self-described” agnostics?

[Frank_apisa]

@Latro

Well, my post was prompted by that impression.

I understand that it was prompted by your impression that I am unwilling to discuss and debate issues.

How in the name of anything can anyone get that impression about me…since I am here taking on a dozen atheists every day?

which, to me, says you don’t want to answer the question because it is just an atheist question. Talking about “The Reality of Existence” is so much deeper.

Try to make that comprehensible, Latro…and I will absolutely respond to it. I honestly do not know what you are talking about here.

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

You are willing to discuss the possibility of an entity that is invisible all-knowing, eternal, and all-powerful that created the whole universe but doesn’t perhaps reside in this universe.
You dismiss out of hand the possibility of an invisible car.
You find this acceptable.

'Nuff said.

If you have a problem with any of that…most of which is gratuitous nonsense…deal with it.

I will discuss whatever I want with whomever I choose.

I am willing to discuss many things with you…and have.

Yes, I am willing to dismiss the possibility of an invisible car out of hand…and I do find this acceptable.

If you don’t…deal with it.

‘Nuff said in return? (with a question mark!)

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

If you have a problem with any of that…most of which is gratuitous nonsense…deal with it.

I will discuss whatever I want with whomever I choose.

I am willing to discuss many things with you…and have.

Yes, I am willing to dismiss the possibility of an invisible car out of hand…and I do find this acceptable.

If you don’t…deal with it.

‘Nuff said in return? (with a question mark!)

Where is your evidence that invisible cars do not exist? Is it greater, equal to or less than than amount of evidence that they do exist?

[DanBlather]

Frank, your argument seems to come down to this:

We do not know everything about how the universe was created.
God is a synonym for the unknown mechanism by which the universe was created
Therefore there is/may be a God

The fallacy is the second statement.

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

Where is your evidence that invisible cars do not exist? Is it greater, equal to or less than than amount of evidence that they do exist?

I do have evidence that invisible cars do not exist.

I do not have evidence that invisible cars do exist.

I cannot categorically say they do not exist…or that they do.

I do have enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess…and based on that evidence, I guess they are merely the product of atheists who think they are being clever when in discussion with agnostics.

The “evidence” is that the only place I have ever encountered assertions of invisible cars are in discussions with atheists doing that.

I have never independently come to question whether invisible cars exist or not…nor have I ever considered whether or not invisible cars could possibly account for existence.

So I am making a guess that they do not exist.

[Frank_apisa]

Obviously that first “do” should be “do not.”

Typo.

[Saganist]

@Frank_apisa

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST…I AM AN AGNOSTIC…and I resent atheists trying to tell me I am an atheist simply because they want to define atheism as “anyone who does not believe in gods.”

I very much do not want to get involved in the debate on the etymology of the word “atheist” but I will say that your quoted definition is the common modern definition, without controversy. If it was changed because atheists wanted it to seem less strident than a previous meaning, then it happened long enough ago that it is a moot point. So unless you have provided a different definition than the common one and made it clear you always meant that one, I have to assume your capitalized atheist means something different than what everyone else thinks it means.

Not really certain what you are saying here…but I see what appears to be a universe…and I wonder how it came into being. But beyond that, I see what I term “existence”…and that seems infinitely more complex than “the universe.” In fact, to my mind, “existence” is to “the universe” what a pea is to living matter.

This very much confuses me. You see the universe but then you see more outside of the universe? By “see” do you actually mean “can imagine”? Because I can imagine huge multiverses controlled by gods riding on infinite piles of turtles as well. But since I can’t “see” any of that in any meaningful sense of the word, I have no problem saying I don’t believe it’s true. Sure, it might be, but I wouldn’t be able to function in life if I never made guesses about the truth value of of scenarios like that. So I guess based on what I can see, which is just the material universe.

But outside of this issue of being able to see “existence” outside of the universe and the fact that I don’t strictly discriminate between “no belief in X” and “belief in not X”, I don’t think I have any problems with your position. My opinion is that we think almost exactly the same thing except are using slightly different definitions of atheism. Whatever. You’ll get no scorn from me.

[Frank_apisa]

@DanBlather

Frank, your argument seems to come down to this:

We do not know everything about how the universe was created.
God is a synonym for the unknown mechanism by which the universe was created
Therefore there is/may be a God

The fallacy is the second statement.

I do not agree with this, Dan.

First of all…I am not usually thinking about “the universe” when I am considering whether or not gods exist.

I am thinking (or considering) “existence.”

What we call “the universe” may be much, much, much more than the thing we call “the universe” and think was created by the Big Bang.

“Existence”, it seems to me, is much more than that.

What “existence” is…and how it came to be…whether by “creation” or “always being” or something different from either of those things that we simply are not equipped to even understand…is so complex, that I feel uncomfortable suggesting I can make any meaningful guesses about it.

The part of existence that we sense…MAY BE an illusion of some sort. The notion that I am independent from everyone and everything else…MAY BE an illusion.

There is no evidence it is…but I do not feel uncomfortable supposing it could be something like that.

I understand that atheists seem to think it makes little sense to even consider anything for which there is no evidence…but I do.

In any case, Dan, if I have left you with the impression that I consider gods to be a synonym for “the unknown mechanism by which the universe was created”…allow me to dissuade you of that impression.

It is not so.

I expect one day we will come even closer to understanding the mechanics of how the universe was created than we do now. When we do…it will, in my opinion, not tell us one thing about whether or not gods exist.

If we found out, for instance, with absolute certainty that what we call “the universe” came into being via the Big Bang…what would that tell us about whether or not gods exist? Could there not be gods that allow “universes” to come into existence that way? Do gods have to “create” universes in a certain way?

[Frank_apisa]

@iophobon

I very much do not want to get involved in the debate on the etymology of the word “atheist” but I will say that your quoted definition is the common modern definition, without controversy. If it was changed because atheists wanted it to seem less strident than a previous meaning, then it happened long enough ago that it is a moot point. So unless you have provided a different definition than the common one and made it clear you always meant that one, I have to assume your capitalized atheist means something different than what everyone else thinks it means.

Let me say this…and I think it is a thought that is significant.

Many atheists do not want the change to which you allude here. Many atheists use the word to denote “a position that denies the existence of gods”…and actually consider the weak atheist position to be a capitulation to be scorned.

In any case, if you want to think “everyone else thinks it means” something different from me…that is your right.

I think, however, that you are wrong in that. I can tell you that I know several people who think it means exactly what I think it means…and who see the value in separating what is commonly known as agnosticism, from weak atheism. To me, that means “everyone else” does not think it means something different from what I think it means.

Under any circumstances…why is this item discussed so often in conversations between atheists and agnostics. I say I am an agnostic. You say you are an atheist. Why not just let it go at that. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that atheism comes in various flavors…just as I am willing to acknowledge that agnosticism comes in various flavors also.

Why not just discuss what we are going to discuss without the designations…so that the atheists do not have to tell me I am one of them for no reason other than to conform to a definition not even all atheists agree on…and which departs significantly from the etymological arguments offered for its existence?

Or…simply use non-theists so that there can be accommodation.

This very much confuses me. You see the universe but then you see more outside of the universe?

No…I see (as well as I can see) what we call “the universe”…but I am concerning myself with something that is more than the universe…a thing called “existence.”

Existence, at least to me, seems to be more than the universe.

The fact that a rock exists as part of the Earth…and therefore as part of “the universe”…is one thing; the fact that rocks…or the universe…exist at all, is something quite different. At least to me it seems that way.

By “see” do you actually mean “can imagine”?

No. I “see” the universe exists (at least, I think it exists, it may be an illusion)…and I see that “existence” is.

Even if the universe is an illusion…existence, or so it appears to me, has to be.

Because I can imagine huge multiverses controlled by gods riding on infinite piles of turtles as well. But since I can’t “see” any of that in any meaningful sense of the word, I have no problem saying I don’t believe it’s true. Sure, it might be, but I wouldn’t be able to function in life if I never made guesses about the truth value of of scenarios like that. So I guess based on what I can see, which is just the material universe.

That is not what I am talking about, Io…and I hope my admittedly inadequate explanation above gave you some taste of what I am saying. I am not talking about flights of fancy, if that is what you are suggesting. I am merely trying to separate the notion of “existence” from the notion of “the universe.”

But outside of this issue of being able to see “existence” outside of the universe and the fact that I don’t strictly discriminate between “no belief in X” and “belief in not X”, I don’t think I have any problems with your position. My opinion is that we think almost exactly the same thing except are using slightly different definitions of atheism. Whatever. You’ll get no scorn from me.

Good. I think it is obvious we are closer by far in some respects than either of us with theists…particularly the theists who insist that a god is necessary or inevitable to explain existence. We do have a different focus. We both recognize that certain things cannot be ruled out…but you want to emphasize that you are inclined to doubt certain things…and I want to emphasize that I do not know.

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

I understand that atheists seem to think it makes little sense to even consider anything for which there is no evidence…but I do.

Are there any other entities for which there is no evidence, other than gods, that you keep an open mind about?

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

Are there any other entities for which there is no evidence, other than gods, that you keep an open mind about?

Yes, the thing I was speaking with Io about.

Something outside the observable universe.

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

Yes, the thing I was speaking with Io about.

Something outside the observable universe.

What about entities in this universe?

[Saganist]

@Frank_apisa

Or…simply use non-theists so that there can be accommodation.

Fine by me. As long as there is admittedly no consensus on what definitions should be used for certain words I have no interest in trying to force people to accept my definition.

No…I see (as well as I can see) what we call “the universe”…but I am concerning myself with something that is more than the universe…a thing called “existence.” [snip] I am merely trying to separate the notion of “existence” from the notion of “the universe.”

I guess we’re just talking about different things then. My proposed definition of the universe is just “everything I can observe to exist”. Almost certainly there is more out there than what I can observe, but I can’t talk about it in the same way I can talk about my chair, Pluto, or even hypothetical aliens in distant galaxies (not because they must exist, but because discussions on that topic typically revolve around well established observed properties of the universe). And then there are the metaphysical questions that seem closer to your “existence” such as the ultimate “why does anything exist at all?”. If that does have an answer, I’m sure its scope is orders of magnitude beyond the universe we can see.

Anyways, I don’t think I have any problem with what you’ve been saying.

you want to emphasize that you are inclined to doubt certain things…and I want to emphasize that I do not know.

I am fine with this being the punctuation on our conversation as long as it is stressed that the two “points of emphasis” are completely compatible.

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

What about entities in this universe?

Why the qualification?

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

Why the qualification?

Just trying to keep the conversation at a semi-real level. When you get to speculation about critters for which there is no evidence residing in universes for which there is no evidence, you can then say everything is on the table and, by at least your standards, we end up knowing nothing at all. Dead end-conversation is over.

[Frank_apisa]

@iophobon

Fine by me. As long as there is admittedly no consensus on what definitions should be used for certain words I have no interest in trying to force people to accept my definition.

We’re go!

I guess we’re just talking about different things then. My proposed definition of the universe is just “everything I can observe to exist”. Almost certainly there is more out there than what I can observe, but I can’t talk about it in the same way I can talk about my chair, Pluto, or even hypothetical aliens in distant galaxies (not because they must exist, but because discussions on that topic typically revolve around well established observed properties of the universe). And then there are the metaphysical questions that seem closer to your “existence” such as the ultimate “why does anything exist at all?”. If that does have an answer, I’m sure its scope is orders of magnitude beyond the universe we can see.

Anyways, I don’t think I have any problem with what you’ve been saying.

I don’t think so either. And obviously some things ARE easier to talk about than others. But things like “alternate universes” “megaverses” “alternate dimensions” “physics as applied to black holes” are worthy of speculation. I have no idea if “alternate universes” exist…but I have discussed them as possibilities and people have made speculations about them. Same goes for alternate dimensions; the notion of the universe as an illusion; alternate realities; or the notion of non-duality.

The notion of “existence” has interested me from a very early age…and almost from the very beginning of my interest in speculating about it, I have considered it quite apart from the thing we call “the universe.”

I am fine with this being the punctuation on our conversation as long as it is stressed that the two “points of emphasis” are completely compatible.

There certainly are no incongruities or inherent contradictions involved…although the fact that the differences becomes such a point of contention with atheists in discussions with agnostics make the “completely compatible” comment seem a bit ironic.