Atheist v Agnostic

Great Debates
41

I’m beginning to think it’s easier to find people who agree on whether god does or does not exist, than to find people who agree what “atheist” or “agnostic” means.

In my math education, I notice that mathematicians often get wrapped up in definitions - but they quickly drop the arguments and get on to more interesting things. Why not here?

It seems particluarly useless to try to convince someone else that he should call himself by a term that you define. Why not just ask the other fellow what he means by …, and listen to what he says, and take the discussion from there?

42

And because of that, places like the straight dope exist!

Let’s face it: agnosticism is not a popular idea, neither is atheism. We may not control the usage of the words but then, as an example, neither does science when they say what evolution is. The majority of the people think they know what evolution is, the sad reality is that many times what they “know” is not correct. While the common usage will triumph among the majority of the people, the reality is that once you study the stuff, there is a right way to describe things. Is that elitism? I thought that was knowledge.

Xanakis, please remember that almost all dictionaries are made by people that have faith, if you can stand by the second definition of atheism of:“godlessness esp. in conduct: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS” then you have a point of using the dictionary as a tool in this discussion.

43

Nen, I’m sorry to say I did not complete my homework last evening. I went drinking with my father instead. I’ll try to finish it this evening.

44

I think it has to do with the believer and non-believer understanding each others point of view, as:

B: I believe in the existence of God, which can not be proven. This constitutes faith, as it is belief in something inherently unprovable.

N-B: I do not share your belief in the existence of God. The non-existence of God also can not be proven.

B: Ah-ha! Your belief also requires faith, as non-belief is the same as belief in the non-existence of God, also unprovable. Therefore, your argument that you require evidence to believe is false as there can be no evidence either way!

N-B: Nuh-ah
B: Yah-hah

Then you get the breakdown of strong- versus weak- atheism, the common (as opposed to correct) use of “agnostic”, etc. I think it’s an attempt by both “sides” to show the other the holes in thier logic. The language does provide some inconvenient limitations, and that’s what we’re working through. I don’t know what definitions math prof’s get wrapped up in, but let’s say it’s “x”. In terms of an equation, we know 7 - x = 0 if x == 7. Otherwise, 7 - x does not equal 0. But without the definition, “x” is not meaningful, and we must agree on it’s definition or else the result is radically different.

Also, to continue with the last analogy:
7 - x = 0, but (-7) - x != 0

I think what we’ve been trying to get at is:
belief - proof = faith, but
0 != faith

The “0” in question being no belief and no proof. Xanakis said “At least believers have the decency to admit they are taking a leap of faith.” I still contend that it’s no more faith than my assumption that I will not encounter the IPU today.

It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee yet, so I hope this makes some sense.

I agree with Beeblebrox in that atheism can be dogmatic, but as podakyne pointed out, that’s not the majority of the non-believers that we’re seeing here. But, FWIW, that’s why I think the definitions are so meaningful…

Oh, and Beeblebrox:

Mom always liked you better, anyway :slight_smile:

45

As someone who defines herself as an “intellectual agnostic” who is married to someone who defines himself as a (weak) atheist…here is the difference in a practical sense on how these words are used at our house:

HE: You are a fence sitter.
ME: You aren’t open minded.
HE: I’m not open minded about Santa Claus either.
ME: But their “could” be some sort of god force in the universe?
HE: When someone shows it to me, I’ll get on board.

We have this conversation about every two years. Its always the same. I’m not an atheist yet, nor have I convinced him he is really an agnostic.

46

What are we debating? Does anyone know anymore?

Earlier posts by atheists are less than clear on what the “technical” terms for the belief system are, as the different definitions vary slightly. (i.e. Is it pragmatic, rational, soft, weak, or light?) To imply that one is fighting ignorance by putting forth one set of connotations is presumptive at best. Semantic arguments are cowardly ones and prove nothing outside of the fact that the english language is flexible.

I have an idea on how we can drop all the semantic bullsh*t and get back to debating whatever it is we are debating. I humbly request an atheist come forward and post a simple glossary of terms. These terms should be brief and not subject to PC like convolutions such as “differently abled south polynesian american”. The terms should be simple and cover the spectrum of agnostic/atheist beliefs.

We will then all agree to use this jargon in any further discusion. Debating whether or not these terms are “correct” will be considered pedantic and pointless.

We must decide on a common language. Whether this language is “correct” is irrelevant.
-Beeblebrox

“They care, we don’t. They win.”

47

Hey, at least you’ve got your priorities straight. Hmmmm…drinking…homework…drinking…homework…yup, drinking.

48

I thought we were debating xanakis last paragraph

FWIW, I’ll give you my terms in (hopefully) the context you’ve requested:

I do not believe a supreme and/or supernatural being exists.

I do not believe a supreme and/or supernatural being does not exist.

I have no evidence of either. I refer to this as “atheist” because it is a point of view that does not require a deity. Note that this does not address my thoughts about Christianity specifically, which is (as I understand it) beyond the scope of this discussion.

Does this satisfy your requirements?

49

not really. What I was going for was more along the lines of definitions of words so we can agree on a common terminology. I was thinking: agnosticism=…, pragmatic atheism=…, weak atheism=…, etc.

However, I do thank you for reminding me what the hell it was we were debating. Which reminds me.

Xanakis, I apologize for insinuating that you were a troll. When you posted a borderline inflamatory O.P. and then did little to defend or expand your argument I suspected that you might have started the thread purely to see the reaction. I’m glad to see that I spoke too soon.

But you never answered my question, which I will re-post:

Xanakis, are you honestly saying that FAITH, whether it be theistic or atheist (aka “strong atheism” or whatever) is disrespectable? Respectable is very different from rational.

-Beeblebrox

And as they drifted up their minds sang with the ecstatic knowledge that either what they were doing was completely and utterly and totally impossible or that physics had a lot of catching up to do.

50

Hear! Hear! Belzebubba! That is exactly what I was trying to get to. As for the guys that use the term agnostic, in the common usage, they should realize it means atheist too. If you believe in an unnamed god separated from the bible, http://www.deism.com/monsters.htm and unknown, you have already a definition:

Deist.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
Beeblebrox:

Agnosticism = atheism.

Common usage agnosticism = all over the map, including Deism.

Pragmatic atheism = atheism.

Weak atheism = not yet atheism.

Hard atheism = what are those guys thinking!!!

Before knowing the SDMB I thought hard atheists were as mythical as the pink unicorn, The vast majority of atheists are not like that. But it looks like they exist. I say those guys are not logical at all because only in this case they are supporting a position that requires faith: Knowing that there is no God. I think they need to find another term to use.

And finally, Beeblebrox, a word from the creator:

Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams (1998)

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html

51

Reading the post by GIGObuster has changed my mind. Douglass Adams has made me an atheist. I do not believe in the creator…Wait a minute.

If DA never existed, than how am I here? How can I have been swayed by his interview?
I am so confused.
My heads hurt.

But seriously, what I am getting from GIGObuster is:

agnostic: meaningless word, don’t use

weak atheist: Someone who doesn’t really believe in God, per se, but is not dead set against the possibility.; motto: What do I know?

pragmatic atheist: Someone who has weighed the facts and considers God such an unlikely possibilty as to be discounted.; motto: I wouldn’t bet on it.

Hard atheism: Someone who is absolutely sure that God does not exist. The possibility is ridiculous.; motto: Not a snowball’s chance in Hell, which doesn’t exist of course.

Are these acceptable? Did I miss any major ones? I’m sick of playing semantic games. Hell, if ya’ll want to be called “Shirley”, I’ll call you “Shirley”.

-Beeblebrox

“They care, we don’t. They win.”

52

Shirley, you must be joking!

I think you have the basic continuum right, Beeblebrox, but I’m not sure exactly where the lines should fall. I’d say your weak atheist is more agnostic. I haven’t seen the term “pragmatic athiesm” used widely, so I’m not sure it’s valid to consider it distinct from weak athiesm.

53

In addition to defining “atheist”, you’ve also got to define “God”. A single person may be at different points along the agnostic/hard atheist spectrum with respect to different definitions of the word God.

54

"Xanakis, are you honestly saying that FAITH, whether it be theistic or atheist (aka “strong atheism” or whatever) is disrespectable? Respectable is very different from rational.

-Beeblebrox"

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying and here’s why.

If I respect a thing then I believe it has value, is worthy of esteem. You can respect anything - a person, an object, an opinion. In this case we are talking about an opinion.

I am saying, in effect, that the agnostic viewpoint is the only one that has value and is therefore the only one I am able to respect.

“I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view.” - Douglas Adams

I never mentioned anything about “rational”.

For clarification, when I said “atheist” in my opening post I was really referring to strong atheism of the kind Douglas Adams proposes.

Some people have suggested “agnostic” means nothing and is really “weak atheism”. I couldnt disagree more, I think “weak atheism” means nothing and is really “agnostic”.

“God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.” - Douglas Adams

I dont really agree with any of this (sorry Douglas).

We dont have “vastly better explanations”. Admittedly science has taken giant leaps in the recent centuries but we are still no nearer answering the “Great Questions of Life”

The idea of God requires no more or less explaining now than it ever has done. Nothing has changed in this regard.

The matter DOES call for even-handedness because there is some evidence that God exists (Natural Theology, the Bible) but there is NO evidence that God does not exist.

I know you can’t prove that something doesnt exist but just because we dont know for a fact that something exists doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Did Pluto exist before we discovered it?

On a slightly separate, but related, point has anyone else noticed that when you go into any mainstream bookshop or library they’ll have stacks of books on all kinds of religions but very few, if any, books on atheism? Before you come back on this, shouting at me, I would first ask you to actually try it and I promise you, you’ll see what I mean. And Im talking mainstream bookstores not little occult ones.

All of the above is, of course, just my own opinion and, yes, Im aware that Douglas is sadly no longer with us (which makes me wonder whether he’s sitting somewhere now feeling a little sheepish).

55

And…?

56

That’s because they shelve books that are likely to sell more than a couple copies. Tell 'em what ya want and they’ll order it. Or, go here, http://www.prometheusbooks.com and request a catalog

57

And does that not appear to you to be slightly imbalanced?

Suppose I wanted a book on Quantum Mechanics so I went to the bookstore and found they had 200 books on Relativity but only 1 book on QT. Then I discovered that this was the case in almost every bookstore in the world. This would make me question the balance available in bookshops.

Since it is the case in all bookshops, I might even start to conclude that there was a partiality problem with bookshops in general.

I know theres a lot of religious people around but does that mean we should ignore the non-religious?

Im not suggesting an organised conspiracy, I dont know the reason for it, Im just saying:

  • it appears to be a fact

  • is it just me who thinks bookstores should stock a range of books in order to reflect all shades of opinion on any given issue?

  • how did this “inbuilt bias” come about?

  • Should it be changed or do you think its ok for bookstores to stock only one book on an important issue like atheism whilst stocking 500 books on religion?

58

Xanaxis, there is even less books on Agnostisism than Atheism in the libraries. A search in google also showed twice more atheist books than agnostics.

Using the Bible as evidence of God is, even among many agnostics, a big mistake. One famous agnostic book takes that view: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/why_i_am_agnostic.html

Also Natural theology uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations.

Incidentally about Natural Theology:

http://skepdic.com/occam.html

59

The Bible is no more evidence of the existence of God than The Hobbit is evidence of the existence of hobbits. It’s a book. We can write books about anything at all, real or not.

“There is NO evidence that God does not exist” strikes me as meaningless. You go on to admit that no one can prove that something does not exist, but neglect the more relevant point: that no one needs to prove it. The burden of proof is on those who claim something does exist. There is never evidence that something doesn’t exist; there is only lack of evidence that it does. This is the case with God. It requires no faith to observe this lack of evidence and conclude that God does not exist, although it could be said that it involves reaching a conclusion without an exhaustive search for more evidence. This is not the same as a leap of faith.

As for those terms, here’s a brief list of the way I learned them:
Soft Agnostic - doesn’t know whether God exists.
Hard Agnostic - doesn’t know whether God exists, and believes that knowing is impossible.
Soft Atheist - doesn’t believe that God exists.
Hard Atheist - believes that God doesn’t exist.

Note that while the “hard” versions of these may be somewhat more arrogant, they are still not beliefs based on faith.

As for the OP, and the statement that “the position of the agnostic is the only respectable position to take,” I for one (atheist and agnostic) haven’t really been that worried about whether you respect my beliefs.

60

Mr O:

“The Bible is no more evidence of the existence of God than The Hobbit is evidence of the existence of hobbits. It’s a book. We can write books about anything at all, real or not.”

Not correct, one of the traditional Proofs for the existence of God is the fact that throughout the whole of human history we have believed in some form of deity. The Bible, the Koran etc are merely the most visible sign of this belief in deity that we’ve always had.

Whether or not you or I believe this “Proof” is irrelevant - it is still evidence. Mankind hasn’t been writing about hobbits for thousands of years.

“It requires no faith to observe this lack of evidence and conclude that God does not exist, … This is not the same as a leap of faith.”

It is a leap of faith because there is not a lack of evidence - there is evidence, this is what Im trying to say.

We are not starting from a position of “theres no evidence either way” we are discussing a proposition that seems astonishing but that there is actually some evidence for.

You may not be personally swayed by the evidence but you cannot deny that there is evidence. Since we are dealing with a proposition for which there is some evidence it must be considered as possible and therefore justifies a “dont know either way” agnostic stance.

All the evidence isnt in yet, not enough to make any kind of quality judgement anyway.