I don’t think I agree with that. I consider myself a “soft atheist”, and I admit that there is no way to disprove every single conception of God, any more than you can disprove imperceptible faeries. (“But there’s no evidence of imperceptible faeries!” “Well, duh, they’re imperceptible.”) I simply think that, barring convincing evidence of God or imperceptible faeries, the default position should be lack of belief. I am not agnostic about God or imperceptible faeries because I lack belief in both, and I personally think the probablity of either existing is remarkably low. I think an agnostic would say “I have no idea whether or not God exists,” while I would say “I do not believe God exists”.
Gaudere answered this well. It’s impossible to know a null result, and few (if any) atheists claim to. Both atheists and agnostics feel there is no evidence for God, but each state this differently.
I think agnostics are in some sense giving weight to the huge history of human belief in a higher power. They don’t agree with it, but the sheer volume of that belief gives it significance, and so agnosticism is respectful of the possibility that all these people are right.
Atheists think all that belief is based on faulty evidence and the fact that religious institutions discourage critical thinking and rigorous questioning. So the fact that millions of humans have believed in god(s) for thousands of years is irrelevant – the idea that there exists a God is no more likely than the idea that tiny bumblebees move atoms around. There’s no reason to specifically state “it could exist, we just don’t know” – you just assume it doesn’t until you have reason to believe otherwise.
I don’t know that there aren’t tiny bumblebees moving atoms around, but I don’t feel the need to state that they could exist whenever I talk about thermal physics.
Why do agnostics believe that it is impossible for a person to have knowledge of the existence of God? Well, they think that because no one has knowledge of the existence of God. But why should that make you think that knowledge of God was impossible? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that since there is no evidence to suggest that an entity that fits the definition of “god” exists, that there is no such entity?
It requires absolutely no faith, no intellectual arrogance, for me to say that Paul Bunyan is a myth (OK, so he was actually an ad campaign…). I disbelieve in the existence of God in the same way I disbelieve in the existence of Paul Bunyan. If a 60 foot man with a big axe and a blue ox showed up on my doorstep, that would be evidence that Paul Bunyan exists. But it seems to me that Paul Bunyan has not shown up on my doorstep, neither have there been any footprints, or photographs, or DNA samples. Same with God.
But sometimes people say that I can’t be an aPaulBunyanist, because if Paul Bunyan showed up I’d believe in him. I must be agnostic about the existance of Paul Bunyan. But no. If we say that we cannot make a decision about the existance or non-existance of entities that have no evidence for their existance, we are therefore forced to accept the possible existance of all sorts of bizarre entities, such as Paul Bunyan. I can think up a million things that do not in fact exist, and it will take no faith at all for you people to believe that those imaginary things do not exist.
So I hold that a lack of belief in God is the same as believing that God does not exist. Believing that Paul Bunyan does not exist is the same as not believing that Paul Bunyan exists. They are saying the same thing.
I would agree that simply saying that I am an atheist is somewhat simple, since it merely states that I don’t believe in gods. But what that really means is that I am a philosophical materialist, which is a declaration about how I believe the universe works, not merely a denial of some other theory. I suppose it is possible to be an atheist and not be a materialist, but I beleive that you’d really be more of an animist or pantheist.
It seems to me that perhaps those that consider themselves agnostic might really be atheists, or perhaps they are deists. Many agnostics believe in some sort of power or direction to the universe, just that that power doesn’t come down to earth to have conversations with desert nomads. So, if we offered agnostics those two choices we might find that many of them would fit there more comfortably, reserving agnostic for those who haven’t made up their mind, or who beleive that it is impossible to make up their mind.
I never contended that believing that one can’t know is the same as simply not believing. However, one implies the other. Unless, of course, one is willing to believe in something which one also believes one can’t know.
I admit I am unsure what you mean by “know”. I have always considered the agnostic position to be that there is not enough evidence either way to support either a belief that God exists, or a belief that God does not exist. Are you saying that the agnostic position is that nobody can know for certain?
If you mean “know for certain”, then I would agree that agnostics are not a sub-set of atheists, because it would be possible for an agnostic to believe that God exists, just not to be sure about it.
However, using that definition seems to water down the word considerably. After all, nearly everyone will admit to not knowing for certain if God exists or not. This would make nearly everyone an agnostic.
If an agnostic is instead simply someone believes that there is not enough evidence to make a decision either way, then my argument still stands, although I shall modify it slightly.
What I should have said is that any rational agnostic is also an atheist. This is because any rational agnostic (or any rational anybody) would not beleive in something which they also believe they don’t have enough evidence to conclude.
So:
- Any person who does not have a belief that God exists is an atheist.
- Any person who beleives that there is not enough evidence to conclude whether or not God exists is an agnostic.
- Any rational person does not believe something which they also believe they don’t have enough evidence to believe.
- Any rational agnostic lacks a belief that God exists. (From 2&3)
- Any rational agnostic is also an atheist.
Of course, had I been thinking, I could have simplified all of this with the question: Can an agnostic rationally believe that God exists, and still be an agnostic? If yes, then I agree that agnostics are not a sub-set of atheists, but I would contend that this is a very watered-down meaning of agnostic. If no, then any rational agnostic lacks a belief in God and therefore is an atheist.
That depends on what you mean by “know”. If you mean “know for certain”, then I disagree. I am an atheist, and I do not believe that it is possible to know for certain. If you mean “have enough evidence to justify belief”, then I disagree again. Think about someone who grew up never hearing anything at all about God. They do not have a belief that God exists. Of course, they also don’t believe that it is possible have enough evidence to justify their lack of belief, because they have never even thought about the topic. They are still atheists, because they lack a belief in God.
I admit my ignorance on current philosophical discussion. The philosophy on this topic that I have read comes mostly from http://www.infidels.org. Every article that I have read there uses the definition of atheism that I used: “the lack of a belief in God”. Also, nearly every self-proclaimed atheist that I have met uses that definition. But perhaps I am wrong (happens often enough 
). What is the current philosophical definition of atheism?
This is correct; I have not read that thread. If I find the time, I will search for it.
Gaudere said:
MysterEcks said:
Well, I have seen a picture of Guadere and long ago learned to refer to her as a “Guiness-swilling elf”. Until I see a picture of Miss Agnostic 2000 pulling a dram of single malt, I’ll party with the athiests. (If I can ever get invited to one, that is.)
I haven’t gone back and looked carefully at the definitions in a while but it is my impression that it would be possible for an agnostic to be thinking, “Well, I can never know for sure, but I THINK there IS a God.” It’s the belief that you can never know for sure that makes an agnostic. Similarly an agnostic could be thinking, “I DON’T think there is a God.” I think that some agnostics frequently move back and forth on their feelings in this way but are still maintaining their agnosticism.
I am not saying that all agnostics vassilate in this manner only that it is possible to do so without giving up your agnosticism.
So, BlackKnight, should I go back and verify this part of the definition?
Gaudere and Giraffe, I am also fairly sure that the previous thread on this subject concluded that the definition of soft atheism included a belief that proof was possible. (Most of the thrust of conversation was that they believed it was possible to prove that there IS a God rather than not. So it’s a little unclear.) It was said by someone that soft atheists believe that the great majority (all?) of currently proposed Gods had already been disproven scientifically. Agnostics, however, find the evidence inconclusive.
What I learned mostly, and this is strengthened by the current thread, is that people disagree on the definitions of these terms and, unless you are looking for an ambiguous term, you should seek a more specific term for your belief. I have chosen Materialism.
OK, I went back and read the whole thread. The definitions are less clear than I thought unless you also go and read the linked websites. It’s a great thread BTW. I particularly like that you can track my learning curve as the thread goes on. I learned about definitions. I learned about how to offend less as well as how to deal with being offended. Read the thread and learn with me.
You would be more than welcome at the ChiDopeFest on the 21st if you made it out this way, Spiritus. I believe there would be a few atheists there, although some might be ::disdainful sniff:: agnostic. And since all the atheists I know (including myself) buy and drink single-malt, Miss Agnostic 2000 is going to have to beat us in either selction or quantity.
It would be possible to prove to a reasonably skeptical person that God exists, should God choose to do so. It is not possible to prove that every possible God does not exist, since an omnipotent being could certainly perfectly hide evidence of His existence from mankind if He exists metaphysically. You could disprove certain specifically defined gods (say, one that appears in a poof of smoke every Thursday at a specified place and time), but not every possible god.
I find I cannot stop myself from commenting that “Guiness-swilling Elf” does sound extremely sexy to me. I have this image of a sexy elf perched on a barstool with a yard of Guiness, using her bare feet to support the bulb as she leans back and quaffs a pint off the top.
I don’t understand. The second point was that agnostics don’t believe in God. How does agnostics believing that we cannot know if there is a God contradict them not believing in God? Are you claiming that agnostics do believe in God? BlackKnight’s point was that while believing that one cannot know certainly is different from not believing, that doesn’t mean that the former isn’t a subset of the latter. Being rich and happy is certainly quite different from merely being rich, but all of the former belong to the latter category.
VileOrb
I was paraphrasing BlackKnight’s post, so not everything in that post is necessarily my own opinion. However, your rebuttal that
seems strange to me. Softs Atheists believe that it is possible to know whether God exists, but haven’t figured out yet whether or not God exists? How did an ontological question (the existence or non-existence of God) get tied up with an epistemological one (whether it is possible to know this)? They seem like completely different issues to me. I cna’t think of any other issue in which these two issues are treated as the same thing. If I say that I don’t believe in astrology, would you conclude that I believe that it is possible to know for certain whether or not astology is true? If I say that I don’t believe in the ether, would you conclude that I believe that it is possible to know for certain whether or not the ether exists?
Perhaps we should avoid all of this by referring to both atheists and agnostics as “non-theists”.
The Ryan:
Now where on the blue Earth would you get that idea? I said something so simple it defies simplifing. Agnostics believe we cannot have any knowledge about the existence of a deity. Atheists are like Guadere and Lemur866 and myself. You can convince us, but we haven’t been convinced yet. As one of the two said, Paul Bunyan’s existence has not been proven. Now, if confronted with sufficient evidence for Paul’s existence, we would accept the evidence and Paul as proved statements. We’d also invite Paul to a Dopefest, if he happened to sign on. We’d hope he isn’t concrete. 
Anyway, a Paul Bunyan agnostic would have a far different view: A Paul Bunyan agnostic would dismiss all evidence for out of hand without even looking at it because such evidence would contradict his belief system. Agnostics have beliefs. To wit: They believe that we cannot know some things. I think they are arrogant, myself, but no more arrogant than any other person with a belief system that they would hold despite evidence to the contrary. Atheists have yet to see such evidence, and would accept it if it did appear. An agnostic would not. Get it?
You said:
The second point to which you were referring was the claim that Agnostics do not believe in God. If you are challenging this statement, that means that you are suggesting that Agnostics believe in God.
I certainly understand that Agnostics do not believe that there is evidence to prove God’s existence. I have no problem grasping this concept. What I don’t understand is how you see this statement as contradicting the claim that Agnostics don’t believe in God.
I used to define myself as an agnostic. I did not know for certain that there was a godhead but i suspected so and acted accordingly. However, through introspection, observation of humans around me and some crude theology I have come to that conclusion that there is no God in the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent sense of the word. I still have my doubts, but I am certain in myself that the three major religions do not have it right (these would be Hindu, Islam and Christianity/Judaism)(Im not even certain that those are the correct names and classification, and if you can class the last two together, but I’ll expose my ignorance.)
I think a lot of belief is based in fear and manipulation of the individual for the good of sociey. Death in the sense of no more awareness is a hard thing to reconcile yourself with. Also the thought of devine justice is a seductive concept. “I may be suffering now, but god will reward me”. I can see how the complex mysteries of life needed a simple explanation in less civilized times.
I experienced a religious narcosis (i was looking for a word that means the opposite of awakening and that was the best i could think of) and became an athiest. It was a conscious change and was definatly a definable event.
I would define agnostic as unsure and athiest as unbelief.
The Ryan:
When I challenged the second point, I stated quite clearly that the correct termenology would be ‘Believed in a permanent lack of knowledge’. I never once implied that that agnostics believed in a deity. Agnostics believe that we can’t know.
Gollum:
OK, here we go again. Agnostics are very sure on one point: Agnostics believe that humans cannot know anything about a deity, including whether or not the deity exists. Hardly unsure. Atheists are, in fact, closer to the ‘unsure’ classification because we are open to all evidence.
I dunno. I reckon your making your definiton too narrow with regard to agnostic, Derleth. Im going to go check a dictionary . BTW - is it gnostic or agnostic? is there a difference?
Its not like its massivly important is it? It’s just seems to be a digital (two extremes) classifictaion of an analogue system (belief of ranging certainty and real world basis, for want of a better term.)
Gnostic and agnostic are at exact opposite ends of the spectrum. Gnostics believe that they know a deity. Intimately. They are the type who have ‘mystical experiences’ and claim to know their chosen deity very well.
By saying that this is “the correct” wording you implied that the original was incorrect.
I have already explained quite clearly how you did so. The fact that you do not understand my reasoning does not make it invalid, and claiming that you did not imply that agnostics believe in God does not mean you didn’t.