I’m in a debate with a friend over whether he’s an atheist or an agnostic.
When asked the question “Do you believe in God?” his answer is:
“While such a being/beings may exist, I see no reason to believe that he/she/it does.”
So is he an atheist or an agnostic*?
What say the Teeming Millions?
Fenris
Please Ignore the * after agnostic. I was gonna put a funny footnote, but reconsidered (it wasn’t all that funny)
I’d say agnostic. He’s leaving open the possibility that a Higher Power may exist.
That position could fit an "empirical agnostice or a “weak atheist”. (Terms drawn from this page.) There is a fair degree of overlap between the different meanings of “atheist” and “agnostic”. (And being theoretically “open to the possibility of a Higher Power” has little to do with it for many self-identified atheists.)
Three points:
[ul][li]Does he say that the question of the existence of God or gods is intrinsically unknowable, or only that we don’t have enough evidence to warrant such a belief? The “intrinsically unknowable” position is much more in the agnostic camp; the “there’s not evidence that has convinced me” is, to me, better described as (weak) atheism (which despite any “wimpy” connotations is probably the most common form of atheism, at least among self-identified atheists who argue about these things).[/li][li]Does his position change any with respect to more specific definitions of God than the generalized “higher power”? Does he consider there to be major or possibly even insoluble logical problems with Christian descriptions of God (the Trinity; omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence; the Incarnation of God as man in Jesus Christ)? What are his reactions to more literal readings of the Bible: the God who made the world in seven 24-hour days 6,000 years ago; the God who made the world as described in Genesis in an ordered sequence some indefinite time period ago, but who did personally and directly fashion humans in his image rather than them simply evolving; the God who was incarnated as a man, died, and was bodily resurrected. If he tends to register more positive disbelief to various definitions of God from classical theology, the more, especially in practical terms, he’s in the atheist camp.[/li]Finally, within reason, what’s his self-identification? I mean, if he claims to be a “fundamentalist Christian” or something one would obviously have to discount that, or even if he called himself a Deist (based on the above), I’d have to wonder. But the above could fit with any of agnostic, atheist, freethinker, naturalist, materialist, rationalist, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, or even pantheist, and assorted combinations of several of those terms.[/ul]
Your friend is an atheist. He does not argue whether or not there is a God, but rather that he doesn’t believe there is. He is not stating a fact but merely expressing an opinion.
His view might be similar to one that says “Yes there is a God, but that does not apply to me.”
“An agnostic is someone who isn’t sure there is a god. An atheist is someone who isn’t sure there isn’t a god.” – Yojimboguy, athesist.
Well, his position on God is identical to mine, and I usually self-identify as an atheist. However, I’d say he is whatever he believes he is; it’s not like there’s some sort of authority who decides these things, so you’ve pretty much got to go with whatever somebody chooses to call himself.
No.
An agnostic (such as, say, myself) is certain that the existence, or nonexistence, of externalities (entities not describable in terms of a closed materialistic universe) is a question that is formally undecidable. This is not necessarily a denial (or an affirmation) of the existence of such things.
He’s a weak atheist, though of course the commonly loose usage of “agnostic” (such as by yojimboguy above) might well cause people to classify hime as “agnostic” based on a loose definition of same.
If he claims, say, “While such a being may exist, it is not possible to discern whether this is the case”, that is agnosticism. Note that indecision does not enter into it.
If I recall correctly from George Smith’s Atheism: the Case Against God, atheism is defined as “a lack in the belief in God,” not necessarily that “God does not exist”
By that definition it sounds like your friend is an atheist.
He’s right here, lemme ask:
He’s in “lack of evidence” camp.
**
**
Actually, “Weak atheist” describes him pretty well. (I was putting him in the “agnostic” camp.
**
[quote]
[li]Does his position change any with respect to more specific definitions of God than the generalized “higher power”?[/li][/quote]
**
He’s more open to a “deist/prime-mover/grand architect” type higher power than a personalized God, but he doesn’t accept either (pending further evidence).
**
**
From him “I :rolleyes: with contempt at “scientific” creationism of all sorts. I can allow for the possiblity of a “Prime Mover”, but all existing evidence contradicts biblical literalism”.
**
He was calling himself “atheist”, I was arguing that if he allowed the possiblity of a higher power, he was an agnostic. He thinks “weak atheist” fits the bill nicely.
Another argument settled by The Straight Dope! 
Thanks!
Hah! Take that, you agnostics, you!
Soon the toaster oven will be mine!
One of the problems with being agnostic is that people wan to redefine you into their camp. Atheists want to take you into theirs by saying that your lack of belief in gOd automatically makes you one of theirs. Blievers in God say that your keeping an open mind on the issue drafts you into theirs.
I say don’t let someone else define our beliefs! Damn the “weak atheist” stuff. He is what h says he is, and defines himself as. You never told us, Fenris, what He thinks he is.
I’m agnostic, and part of my claiming that name comes from the philosophical beliefs that Som Guy notes, but some also comes from wanting to avoid the popular belief that Atheists “believe that God doesn’t exist”. That’s certainly not an accurate summation of my state of unbelief, and I’d rather not be identified with it.
Wrong. Uncertainty always enters into it. I don’t believe in a God. I’ve never seen any evidence I can credit to a God. I’m pretty sure there is not a God. I could be wrong. I say I’m an atheist.
You’re saying I can’t be an athesist because I’m not certain enough? Because I have doubts? And according to you, agnostics are equally certain of their (apparently equally doctrinaire) beliefs? And of course, the devout of all religions are equally certain of theirs.
Must be nice to have such certainty where you live. What’s the name of that planet, again?
Oh yeaf, Fenris, IMHO, your friend is an atheist.
Of course, in my world of uncertainty, I could be wrong.
“Atheism” comes from adding the Greek prefix “a-” that denotes “a lack of; without” to the word “theism.” So atheism is the lack of theism, which is itself a belief in a deity or group of deities.
“Agnostic” is supposedly Huxley’s play by adding the Greek prefix “a-” to “Gnostic,” the anicent sect that knew everything.
So, an atheist is somebody who is without belief (in theism), while an agnostic is somebody who is without knowledge (in the existence of gods). An agnostic is somebody who is undecided because he asserts there is insufficient knowledge to make the decision.
IMO, agnosticism is not a defensible tenet.
The two categories may not be mutually exclusive.
He was saying “atheist”, but upon reading MEBuckner’s post, thought “weak atheist” actually fit his beliefs far better.
And, so everyone’s clear, we were quibbling over the correct word to define his beliefs, not his beliefs themselves.
I don’t quite agree, Cal, if I say “I believe the Pope is God’s agent* on Earth, I believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, I believe that going to confession is good…etc” but I define myself as a Muslim, I’m wrong. 
It’s clearly not that black and white with the atheist/agnostic/weak atheist definitions, but that was kind of what was causing the debate!
Fenris
*I know “agent” isn’t the right word, but I can’t remember the phrase.
I’m not saying that at all. In case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t critiquing your own self-evaluation, only your definition of agnosticism. I’ll admit I’m a bit prickly about it, for the simple reason that most people are completely misinformed about what it means.
As for the rest of your post, I’m quite willing to answer it (and Urban Ranger’s post), but this thread, in IMHO, is not the place for such a hijack. If one wanted to, say, Debate (hint) it elsewhere, one might open a thread in that place instead.
True, but trying to base your estimation of someone else’s philosophic standing based upon a very few statwements isn’t likely to be accurate. I’d think that you, Heinlein fanatic that you are, would appreciate that. Based on the few statements he’d made, a lot of folks (not the snap-judgemnent types who called him a “fascist” because of ST) were willing to call him a Libertarian, but he went out of his way in that interview to show that one wrong. Molly Ivins has also written long and lovingly on not letting someone else stereotype your views based on a few statements. Although in such clear-cut cases as you point out, I agree that the speaker is clearly misguided in his/her evaluation of his/her position, it seems to me that most folks know where they’re coming from better than that. Don’t let 'em pigeonhole you!