Dear friends,
This is my first real rant... breaking out that soap box.
Agnostic has broadened my world and introduced so many lovely people into my life that I deeply enjoy the company of. Our conversations are sometimes fun and lighthearted, other times intense and intellectual. I've learned many things from this community and the people in it.
That said, there is this tired old debate. One where agnostics and atheists can't seem to agree on definitions for the words. I'm not going to sit here and post telling all of you that people misunderstand and they need to be taught! That is so demeaning and presumptuous when people do that. It's preaching and coaching rather than talking to someone like a peer. I respect all of you as peers and fellow critical thinkers, so...
I can tell you my own interpretation based on the digging that I've done. I won't ask you to agree with it. All I ask is you do what you already do, think critically. Be open minded. And, most of you are pretty cool and respectful peeps, so I don't think I need to say it-- but there is always one person that needs the reminder. So, here it is! Please play nice. ; )
Disclaimer: if you want to call yourself an agnostic, atheist, agnostic atheist-- whatever, it's your choice based on what fits you most comfortably. The term you choose for yourself is what matters more than my interpretation of the words.
Ah, so for almost 20 years, I've said I was an atheist. After joining agnostic, someone ranted about atheism and agnosticism being mutually exclusive. That someone made me re-evaluate my own thinking. I started digging into the words a little more... and then I started questioning my own bias.
Was I calling myself atheist, because I rejected the dogma of religion (which on an emotional level really pisses me off)? When I thought about it, I could only reject certain gods. Because there was not only no proof of these gods, the evidence was stacked against the holy books these gods are defined in.
I absolutely do not believe the Abrahamic god as portrayed in the bible or similar holy texts is real. These holy texts disprove themselves with contradictions and inaccuracies.
I do not reject the idea of the possibility of a creator of some sort. I do not believe it. But, I do not disbelieve it.
My beliefs and disbeliefs are based on facts and evidence. I will shift beliefs regardless of my feelings, if the facts and evidence align.
*When I looked into the terms atheist and agnostic here is the defining difference
Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Definition of agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
*The difference between the two, per Merriam-Webster (and I agree with this interpretation, which is why I regularly quote it)
Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesnât know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help.
Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agn?stos (meaning "unknown, unknowable" ). Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share a prefix (which is probably the source of much of the confusion) the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing something. Atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which generally have something to do with God.
Depending on your interpretation, I could be defined as an atheist or an agnostic. Atheist if we're talking ONLY about the Abrahamic god. But, why was I defining myself as if Christianity was the anchor of the definition?
In broad strokes, I realized agnostic fits better for me. I don't know if a god or creator exists. And, if I have to label myself, I prefer to think in general.
Some people call themselves agnostic atheists. Per wiki, one of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887â1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).
I understand the intent behind the conjoined term, but in my mind these two concepts contradict. How can you both not believe (disbelieve) and claim unknowability? Why have both terms at all, aren't you just agnostic if you require evidence?
But, I suppose it comes from the desire to say, I disbelieve until someone proves otherwise. Which, I do get. But, agnostics don't believe anything without evidence either. So, I don't feel the need to put the terms together. Though, I don't find I need to argue with people who do want to put them together. It does make it's point, which is the whole purpose of labels to begin with. So, OK.
ah, semantics
To sum this up, in my opinion there is no perfect term, label, or word for me. I use labels as a general means to find things that interest me under these headings and to connect with people who generally share my viewpoint-- or at least share the desire to reject dogma and examine things critically.
This rant is only because I've seen several people try to "educate" others on the definitions. To tell everyone they are wrong and have a misconception. This has long been debated and really, to what end? There isn't a good conclusive resource to say side A is right and side B is wrong, so why keep bringing it up? To educate people without a strong source to reference is against the very concept of freethinking. It's better to say "my opinion is..." or "my interpretation is..." and even myself, I cannot claim that I am right and others are wrong. There is no really good corroboration for either side here. Our sources don't even really agree.
Truth be told, I hate labels anyway. I don't feel the need to have a specific tattoo of either agnostic or atheist. Those of you who know me get the gist of what I do and don't believe. I hate dogmatic thinking-- that's the end game.
Fuck the labels. If you don't like dogma, you are my people, my tribe, and I'm good with whatever definition you want to use.
Seriously, call yourself whatever you want, friends.
If you read to the end, thank you for hearing me out. This is the longest blurb I've written. I will now step off my soap box.
With
Silvereyes
The real debate about how a person is lies with how they hang toilet paper. XP
Just kidding, people seriously need to chill. Iâve known so many âflex atheistsâ who are âagnosticâ in public because of the connotation of atheist.
Even on the scale you can have gnostic and agnostic religious and unreligious people... Iâm faiiiirly sure the site even defines the words to stave off this in-fighting.
Personally, fully agree the Ibrahamic god is fake as shit, some cultures deify natural things. Shintoism worships some trees that they believe house spirits. Do I -not- believe in trees? No, theyâre there. Do I deify them? No, no I do not. My âdoubtâ is in the interpretation. Though, at the same time that concept that you can deify yourself with enough people buying into your ego is pretty damn niche cool.
^_~ Live and let live, do no harm and take no shit!
xoxo
People whose toilet paper comes out on top of the roll, come out on top in life.
It is very simple:
Q1 "Does a god exist?"
A1 "I don't know, I'm agnostic."
Q2 "Do you believe that a god exists?"
A2 "No, I'm an atheist."
No sane atheist would claim to be able to prove the non-existence of a god, hence any sane atheist is also agnostic.
The answer for the first question would be
Define the god you are asking about.
Then show the definition don't make sense, so the question has no meaning.
If I ask if a sgrublesn exists, you would need a definition of it, If i gave a definition that is self contradictory, you would simply say that it makes no sense.
Just because we get used with the god term and it became kind of instinctive to work with the concept, does not avoid that when you think about it, there is no coherent definition of it to start working on the existence question.
No, I'm agnostic. I don't know.
I can identify. Maybe I am an agnostic atheist. I was once a believer in the Abrahamic god but have come to realize that there is no proof of any gods and various holy books are only the writings of those who believe. The books are written by men and not supreme beings. What is a god? Having a god who is greatly concerned about my sex life is disturbing. Make this god all powerful and yet have him unable to do things is more disturbing yet. It gets much worse when I discover how the holy books were assembled and how long it took to get them in our present forms today. Belief in gods of any sort is much worse than science fiction.
This was well thought-out, and well written, thank you for sharing your thoughts and the result of your searching and cogitating! Agnostic and atheist are similar terms, but, yes, they define different perspectives. I call myself an atheist because I strongly believe that there is no god (or are no gods), and that works for me.
I've also traveled that agnostic/atheist trail, and have come this conclusion: I am a post Big Bang atheist, and a pre Big Bang agnostic. I know - we shouldn't think in terms of 'before the Big Bang since time started then, but that is my stand. We pretty well have it nailed that the universe started at the BB, but those first few microseconds after the start is still a mystery. 'Before' the BB is so out there I can't even speculate
How do YOU know time started then? Maybe it's a nevr-ending cycle.
As others have pointed out, gnostic relates to a claim of knowledge while theism relates to having belief. They are two separate points that can be mixed and matched either way.
A gnostic theist claims knowledge of and belief in a god. An agnostic theist believes, but claims no knowledge of. A gnostic atheist doesn't believe, and claims to know about god's existence. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe, but claims no knowledge to the existence of a god.
can anyone claim to have read this post, from start to finish ? rule one, keep your comment as brief and to the point as possible, even if you have a million points !
Don't know if you meant the original post, or if you're including the later comments.
I did read both, at first, and keep coming back for more, as I've starred this.
I'm glad to think I'm part of your unique crowd @silvereyes,
Hey, let's build a tree house!
Lol
Interesting but at the end of the day an agnostic cannot call themselves a theist so I kinda think the point is moot. For some of us who go so far as saying we are anti-theist, we are angry that the Lords prayer is said at beginning of parliament, swearing on bible in court and religious instruction in schools. I find religion divisive and feel the world would be a better, kinder place without it so I will proudly shout ATHEIST.
Nice rant Silvereyes. With you all the way! Make sure you put the soapbox away safely. I'm looking forward to the next one
Me too. "Rants" are underrated.
I completely agree. Aren't we all united in our doubt?
But that's where the line is drawn being comfortable in not knowing vs being confident there is nothing
Darling, I agree with you 100%. I'm personally agnostic. I can't say there's something there or not. I, personally, almost had my heart fail while having a csection and something stopped it before the paddles were brought in. There was no medical intervention. I can't say what happened, but I'm not going to full on dive into religion that is a giant hypocrisy. The only thing I have ever disliked about the atheist community has been the belittling and shaming of those who do believe. Especially if that person has been polite enough to not impose their views. I hate it when Christians do it too, but I've met more than my share of atheists that have been giant dicks about it.
Concerning the belittling and shaming, I met an athiest like that a few years ago. This guy was a real asshole. He behaved just like a fundamentalust christian telling everyone that they're going to hell. I just told him not to become the thing he hates.
I like the Dawkins approach of an agnostic scale of 1-7 (on which he variaby professes to be a 6 or 6.9). I like this because it incorporates the unfalsifiability of theism, and encourages the necessary humility I consider to be inherent to the viewpoints.
Comment approved
This is why dialogue/ conversation is important. Not just definitions...
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not that there is an active belief that there is no god.
Just break the word down:
A = Without, no
Theism = Belief in a god/ deity.
But regardless of the definition that you so choose, what matters is what the majority of Atheists stances are.
And they will all state lack of belief. Not an active belief.
Yes! Lack of belief! That's all the word means! Referring to an atheist as anything more than that is essentially the "labeling" OP doesn't like. Which is why we have these conversations, to sort things out.
I like what the Dali lama said, which was in answer in an interview when asked, what if science proved there was no god? He said ( I paraphrase) then thereâs no god. Be nice.
I love that quote from the Dalai Lama I have read several of his books one point I have about Buddhism reincarnation to me it sounds too Supernatural.
that's okay Dalai Lama came right out and said if you believe in reincarnation, your goal is to live a good life, if you don't believe in reincarnation then your goal is to live a good life
Of course your post is brilliant I very much agree that those definition should be clearly defined although how people Define themselves is their own business
my question is if we define god as nature in the style of Spinoza how do we Define ourselves the critical point is Nature Cares About Us or if we were gone nature could go on just fine without us
The unfortunate answer to your question is that nature/the earth would fare much better without us. We are the worst form of parasite (because we offer no benefit whatsoever to our host) ?
This never stops coming up. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive I assure you. The difference is also not hard to remember. All you need to know is that they answer two different questions.
Do you KNOW? no, agnostic
Do you BELIEVE? no, atheist.
Its not hard or contradictory at all to admit we don't know but also have no reason to believe.
It's also helpful on the theist side -- tho rare, there are some theists honest enough to admit they don't know if there's a god, tho they believe (or perhaps hope) there is one, making them agnostic theists.
Here's the article I spoke of. Lol, "At least we know what we don't know.
By Ron Rosenbaum"
After leaving Christianity, I was called an athiest for not believing. My response was, "I never said I don't believe in a god, I just no longer believe in YOUR god," I don't know if there is or is not a god. And I'm ok with not knowing.
I have always thought the same as you. Oddly enough I think the term atheist just gives theists more power. It actually gives theists the idea that they are on the same playing field, because of course no honest person can claim to know if we were created by something greater or not.
It could just be my chances when talking to atheists, but it seems they more often say things that disprove the biblical god and act like knowing all the physics behind our world is somehow proof that there is no god. Proving the Abrahamic god is false and knowing everything about physics still doesnât prove that the system wasnât set up by something else. Even if it becomes pointless to know, which I believe it is, it still wonât prove or disprove that we arenât in a simulation.
Also being agnostic does NOT at all mean you think god may exist. It just means you donât know, and often agnostics donât even care, which usually isnât an atheists position. In fact it sets up religious folk up with the most annoying comebacks of all âyou canât prove that god doesnât exist, just like I canât prove he doesâ and âif you are so sure that he doesnât exist, you are believing with religious faith, then I guess that is your religionâ
Whereas an agnostic person knows its ok not to know things and is content with the facts that some things are unknowable...which is very much a more honest and scientific stance if you think about it. Scientists donât claim to know things they donât and are ok with that, it wouldnât be scientific any other way.
At best any athest who understands how the scientific model works can only claim there is no god as a hypothesis not a theory. It isnât a theory until it withstands scrutiny and heavy testing.
I am an atheist and believe in the scientific method. The hypothesis is not "there is no god." The hypothesis is that there is a god. Start piling up the evidence.
I absolutely do not believe the Abrahamic god as portrayed in the bible or similar holy texts is real. These holy texts disprove themselves with contradictions and inaccuracies.
I will let it go with your above quoted and reposted text and just go on from there. This is what happens when you have all these books bound together that were never meant to be bound together. It means that your bible is all made up. Gods have written none of it and no gods are trying to get in touch with you. Call me by whatever name you want. This is why I do not believe in god.
That's it!
I choose to go by Atheist simply because it is more clear to those who are less knowledgeable than you, and many others on this site. Both terms fit most of us because strong disbelief in the existence of a god and one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of or a god are not mutually exclusive. I really doubt there is a god, to the tune of less than 1%, but I cannot say it is zero and so here we are. Many would have a similar stance with some degree of movement on the %. Others just don't care enough involve math. Either should be accepting of the other.
I agree with you.