A group of friends has been having fun with selectsmart’s religion selector – and one said he can’t have a lot of respect for a religion selector that has a category “atheist/agnostic.” He is an atheist and sees these two as very different. I’m not sure that I agree - I think a soft atheist and an agnostic are perhaps closer than a hard atheist and a soft atheist.
This seems to be the place to debate this - what do ya’ll think?
This thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36512 , may be of interest here.
The problem is there is a definite difference between dictionary definitions and philosophical definitions and this leads to confusion. Generally though, saying atheist/agnostic seems to be parallel to saying Christian. For example, compare Mormons with Lutherans, definitely not the same religion andyet they are all considered Christians.
As I’ve noted before, my father was an agnostic. He did not categorically deny the existence of a Supreme Being, but insisted that he did not know and did not believe. On the other hand, while he did not accept any concept of a life after death (either reincarantion or an immotal soul), he also frequently said “I refuse to believe the universe evolved by random chance.”
In the end, that’s how he died. Not believing, but not knowing one way or the other.
As a theist I have to agree with your friend. The sorts of categories people invent for argumentative stuff like this are often inadequate to describe what real people think.
Proposition: “Yetis exist.”
A Yetist thinks they do. There are different schools of Yetist who believe they are primitive men, an undiscovered species of great apes, disguised survivors of Atlantis, etc. Some Yetists think that every Tibetan and Nepali legends about Yetis must be true; others accept their existence but refuse to believe the stuff about their feet being on backward, female yetis throwing their tits over their shoulders to run faster, and so on.
Some people believe there is inadequate evidence to conclude anything about the supposed existence of Yetis.
Some people are firmly convinced there is no such thing as a Yeti. And some find the legends so hard to accept that they provisionally reject the legends, but allow that there is the remote possibility that there may be Yetis, but refuse to accept this as anything but an unlikely-in-the-extreme off-the-wall hypothesis pending any worthwhile evidence that there are in fact Yetis.
As an analogy, it has its points, though I suspect it’s weak in some details. Comment?
Thanks for the link, I remember that thread…the “selector” also has lumped as a group “Mainline to Conservative Protestant” – which seems to me to cover as much or perhaps more ground than Atheist/Agnostic.
I think the two are often grouped together because many people drift between the two. But, as others have pointed out, there are clear differences.
It seems to me SelectSmart could easily distinguish between the two by simply asking the user questions like “Do you think the question of whether God exists is unknowable?” or something like that.
As an Agnostic living with an Atheist, I would have to say, yes they are very different.
To my thinking, an Atheist is pretending to knowedge he doesn’t actually have, just as much as a Theist.
I have always distinguished the two as follows:
Someone who is an atheist does not have a belief in any god or gods. It is a statement about belief (or lack thereof), not about knowledge.
Someone who is an agnostic thinks that it is not possible to know for a fact if a god or gods exists.
So if one considers knowledge and belief to be two different things, the two are really orthogonal. One can be an agnostic atheist - someone who has no belief in any gods and also doesn’t think it’s possible to know if a god or gods exist.
betenoir
How so? Belief is not the same as knowledge. Claiming to believe in the nonexistence of God is not the same as claiming to know the nonexistence of God. Tell me, do you believe this message board exists? The fact that you posted to it suggests that you do. And yet you don’t know for certain that it does. It may just be a clever illusion. Does the fact that you believe this, without having proof, mean that you are claiming knowledge that you don’t have?
I think that Polycarp’s analogy was rather good. I would like to add that the disbelief in Yetis is a quite reasonable conclusion to reach, and that charges of conceit against those that are convinced of the nonexistence of Yetis are quite unfounded. Just because we do not have conclusive evidence that Yetis do not exist, that does not obligate people to take seriously the possibility that they exist. Since when are we prohibited from making a decision without having complete information? Doing so is part of everyday life. Popular culture seems to have adopted the idea that we must “keep an open mind” and that even if we do not believe something is true, we must still admit that it is just as possible as not. This is silly, perhaps even dangerous. I am quite capable of determining that one possibility is quite more likely than another, and forming opinions based upon that determination. The idea that all possibilities are equally likely, or even equally valid, is pure nonsense.
Heh, it said I should be a Neo-Pagan or a Liberal Quaker.
Betenoir and porcupine, please read the thread I linked to earlier. We agreed on definitions… sort of. There is a big difference between hard and soft atheism.
Yes, hard atheists believe something for which they have no definite proof. Though that I would argue that they (we) do have proof that none of the mainstream gods (or Gods, or God, or whatever) exist. For me, it comes down to this: I see no good reason for a God to ask people to have belief without proof, any God who asks this is not a God I want to give my support too. I’d rather just assume there is none at all.
The thread (which you can search for) on Atheist/Agnostic epiphanies is another enlightening thread. This concept is something I first thought of when I got a mathematical epiphany during a calculus class. It occurred to me that the feelings I felt during the epiphany were exactly like what had been described to me by a born again Christian the day before. I later found out that my newfound understanding of math was incomplete and even a bit wrong. I had such a deep down feeling of it’s inherent “correctness” that it was very hard for me to move on with my learning. I, therefore, have a great respect for epiphanies but a considerable distrust of them. Those that use that feeling as a personal proof of God’s existence will not get any debate points from me.
I encourage you all to read the threads I have indicated. At least see where we came to a consensus on definitions.
Damnit, VileOrb. I wrote out a reply, previewed, and then saw your message extolling the virtues of reading previous threads. So I did, and found my position stated more intelligently by someone else:
**
**
This is pretty much my view on atheism. (I also happen to think that agnostics are just wussy atheists who are afraid to have an opinion, but that’s another matter.)
Hmm. As a practicing (for want of a better word) “hard” agnostic, I would define things thusly:
Theist–believes in a being(s) superior to ourselves, usually termed "god(s). Note that this is not the same as believing a particular religion–the one does not have to imply the other, though it usually does.
Atheist–believes there is no such superior being(s).
Agnostic–doesn’t know if there is any superior being(s) or not, and doesn’t believe anybody else knows either.
The difference between an atheist and and agnostic, then, is that the atheist has come to a conclusion that the agnostic doesn’t believe can be concluded. Definitely not the same thing, provided the definitions are used correctly. (Note, though, that the term agnosticis often used sloppily, even by those professing to be agnostic. To some people it means “undecided”…or, in the case of my sister’s ex-boyfriend, “I wanna be a Christian except for the parts I don’t like.”)
Agnostics and atheists can be confused from the position of a particular religion, however. From the Christian viewpoint, for example, agnostics areatheists, in the sense that neither believes the Bible or any other allegedly-holy pronouncements. From that perspective, the differences are irrelevant.
I don’t agree with your definition. I’ve never met a self-identified atheist who would say “I know for a fact that there is no superior being”. In my experience, better definitions would be:
Atheist – doesn’t know if there exists a superior being or not, and doesn’t believe anybody else knows either. Believes that there has been no evidence for a supreme being so far, and hence will assume it doesn’t exist until evidence to the contrary appears.
Agnostic – doesn’t know if there exists a superior being or not, and doesn’t believe anybody else knows either. Unwilling to venture a guess. In my experience, agnostics are just atheists with religious families and/or friends. 
Not bad, except that in these parts, podnuh, we draw a line between the “soft” or pragmatic atheist, which is what most of the thoughtful posters on this board who espouse a non-theist, non-pagan, non-agnostic point of view are, and the “hard” or dogmatic atheist, who is firmly convinced that there is no god. The latter seems to come in two styles: troll and straw-man, the first posting stupid ukases whenever anybody discusses religious belief, and the latter being set up as an antithesis for the thoughtful pragmatic atheists that do really post. Kind of like the dogmatic hellfire-and-damnation fundaloonie that doesn’t resemble in the slightest the majority of conservative Christians that do in fact post.
YMMV, of course.
From Ptahlis - ‘There is a difference between soft atheism; “I do not believe in God,” agnosticism; “God may or may not exist, and there’s now way we can ever know,” and hard atheism; “I believe no gods exist.” Some have a difficult time with the distinctions.’
These seem to be fairly accurate and succinct definitions. You’ll have to read the other threads and maybe even some of the linked websites to get a full understanding. I submit that further argument on what the definitions should be is futile.
Soft atheists emphasize the scientific method, which is an appealing part of their beliefs for many.
It is the Hard Atheist who generally doesn’t like getting lumped in with agnostics since agnostics generally deny the possiblilty of knowing and Hard Atheists believe they know. Soft Athiests don’t claim to know for sure, but they believe that it would be possible to know if the proper experiment could be devised. I started out in this debate accusing Soft Atheists of being wussies too wussy to even admit to being wussies by proclaiming their agnosticism. Eventually I had to admit that there was a critical distinction between a soft atheist and an agnostic. Thus I went from trollish strawman to something else without giving up my Hard Atheism. I encourage the scientific method because I am convinced it will prove me right.
Polycarp do you think my posts in this thread ahve been trollish? I submit that it is possible to be a hard atheist and still a thoughtful poster in the same way that it’s possible to be a firm Christian and still be a thoughtful poster.
Eventually, I figured out that Materialist was a better word to use for myself, though still not quite exact. A encourage you Hard Atheists to examine Materialism (a form of Hard Atheism as I see it).
Let me just reiterate that the SelectSmart religion selector does not define any religion very specifically, so you shouldn’t be that upset that it lumps atheists and agnostics together. It doesn’t even mention Materialism.
From the American Heritage: Materialism - 1. The philosophical opinion that physical matter in its movements and modifications is the only reality and that everything in the universe, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained using the physical laws.
Unfortunately, definition #2 is a belief I am opposed to. I won’t even state it in hopes that less people will use that definition. If you REALLY want to know, you can look it up youself.
You a troll or straw man? Absolutely not, Vile Orb! You make intelligent posts from a hard-atheist perspective, and somehow I filtered that out from the generic discussion of posters’ faiths or lack thereof…probably because we’ve seldom discoursed on religion in the same threads. But you do have my apologies for that memory lapse.
My basic point was that, in general, a hard atheist is set up as a straw man to argue against, for soft atheism or somebody’s variety of theism, or is proclaimed by the guy with 7 posts who pops into page 5 of a serious dialogue with a “You guys are all stoopid, because God doesn’t exist. And the Bible is all myth made up by the Greeks.” and goes about his business. I’m sure you’ve seen the like, and I no more intended to tar you with the same brush as him as you would to brand me a thoughtless doctrinaire Christian. I do really regret it.
At some point it might be interesting to explore how you arrived at that conclusion – I honor your sincere belief in (philosophic) materialism, but most other materialists online seem to have adopted soft atheism. And I welcome the opportunity to learn more about how other people arrive at the metaphysical conclusions they do.
should we have a soft and hard agnosticism?
when i decided i was an “agnostic” from what i read in sci-fi books i looked it up in the dictionary and it said.
a person that BELIEVE it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether or not there is a God. (emphasis added)
i objected to the believe and the impossible. i KNEW that i didn’t know whether or not there was a God but i also KNEW that i had no way of knowing it was impossible.
so did that make me a SOFT agnostic, now turned heretic. what if believing and admitting impossible turns the mind off?
Dal Timgar
I agree with Lemur866 in the previous thread (which, by the way, I was very active in) and with Giraffe in this one. Atheism is not having conclusive evidence that YHVH/God/Thor/Isis/Eris/Zeus/etc. exist or do not exist. That was easy. Here comes the hard part. Atheists lump all mythical creatures into the same boat on this fact. We don’t single out any specific beastie or deity or wraith or Shape as the ‘object of their disbelief’. We simply return a ‘not proved’ verdict on the lot (to use a Scottish legal term) and then field questions from people who can’t tell the difference between us and agnostics. Tough life, let me tell you. 
I must admit, I hadn’t divided atheists up into “hard” and “soft” factions–the only distinction I had made was in whether they tended to “preach” atheism (those I dub “evangelical atheists”) or not. Under VileOrb’s definitions:
I would be refering to hard atheists in my definitions, while Giraffe would be refering to soft atheists. (Though the suggestion that agnostics are atheists who won’t admit it so they don’t aggravate their families is silly.)
Quite so. And, for your information, agnostics aren’t too thrilled about getting lumped in with atheists, either.