Agnostic.com

65 14

Why to call yourself "Atheist" instead of "Agnostic."

I've come to believe calling oneself an agnostic about God is, in the vast majority of cases, a double standard revealing flawed assumptions and socialized pressures. I don't blame anyone for struggling with those pressures, as I still do and still will even after posting this.

Throughout my life, I went from Jewish to Monotheistic to Deistic to Agnostic to Atheist, with occasional skips and hops back and forth between the last three, sometimes as fluidly as all within the same day.

Why? A number of reasons. I liked the idea of a sentient Higher Power looking out for humanity, disliked the idea that there's nothing for me after death, and sometimes think that humans are so remarkable, the richness and variety of our life so wide, that surely some Celestial Spark must have been placed in one of our ancestors sometimes in the past 10,000 years or so.

But while I can't help occasionally feeling those things, rationally there's just nothing left for me to hold on to: no arguments, no evidence, no matter how much I look and read and listen and debate.

Atheism is a "dirty word" in much of US society, and only exists because the majority of people are theists. No one calls themselves an a-astrologist, because most people don't seriously believe in astrology. But because the default for religion is flipped to "on" thanks to a world full of childhood religious indoctrination, we who left the fold must loosely label ourselves by the absence of a belief.

So why can't I call myself an agnostic anymore? It's nice and safe and inoffensive, isn't it? Atheism is just "so arrogant!"

Well, here's the thing. Most agnostics say that their belief that God may exist boils down to a) the lack of evidence He doesn't exist, or b) the inherit mysteries of the universe. Not just that we don't know everything, but that He's potentially unverifiable, and therefor outside the purview of science or reason.

The problem is, this can apply just as well to anything magical or mystical.

Do I believe in magic? Primal spirits, like the life force of rocks/animals/the planet? Unicorns? Ghosts? These are things that may well exist outside our ability to observe/detect/test, just like God. I used to believe in many of these things, and am still open to the idea that they might exist.

But do I call myself an agnostic on those things? If someone asks me if they're true, do I say "I don't know, there isn't enough evidence one way or the other?"

Most likely, no. Most people don't, in fact. If pressed I'll say I'm OPEN to the belief in them, but until evidence shows up I disbelieve.

This is exactly what the vast majority of atheists say about God.

To claim that "asserting with 100% surety that there is no God is just as arrogant as claiming with 100% certainty that there is" is a strawman itself. The vast majority of atheists, even those as "militant" as Richard Dawkins, will readily admit that they are not 100% sure of God's lack of existence. Only 99.9%, or 9.7/10, or some such.

Acknowledging two things is important here:

  1. It's as impossible to pretend to disbelieve something you believe as it is to pretend to believe something you disbelieve. Meaning you can't just through a matter of willpower believe you are a mosquito: on some level, you know that you really are not a mosquito.

  2. It's impossible to prove an unverifiable negative. I know this comes up a lot, but only because it's a monumentally important logical fallacy that many people fail to check against every aspect of their worldview.

But due to the "Prove a Negative" fallacy inherent in the argument of agnosticism, to say I'm an agnostic and not an atheist is to say I believe that God is just as likely to exist as anything else I can't prove doesn't exist, such as unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, etc. Which is why "agnostic deist" or "gnostic atheist" are actual things, much more precise than the shorthand many use.

And while some people may well admit being agnostic on all of those things, the vast majority I've met will say no, they don't believe in unicorns, but on the issue of God they are agnostic. Which leaves God as a double-standard born of societal pressures, because we've been conditioned to treat religious beliefs differently.

Final points:

I know rain is the result of precipitation. Can it be more than that? Are there undetectable rain spirits also affecting whether rain falls? Not likely, but I have no idea. Should I then say that rain spirits might exist, even though I have no evidence of it?

Being open minded means being open to the possibility, but being informed and rational means basing beliefs on probability. If someone asks me if I think dragons exist, I don't say "Maybe." I say no, I don't think so, because there's no evidence or logic to support it. That doesn't mean I think they can't exist. Why should it be different for God?

In summation, due to social stigma, "atheism" is seen as an extreme view rather than the rational starting point (disbelief) of any unverifiable claim. We are all born atheists, just as we are born a-astrologists. But we live in a time and place where it's deviant to disbelieve in one of those things, but not the other, on purely inconsistent rationale. And so, many people consider themselves agnostics, despite having just as little reason to believe in God as anything else they have no evidence of.

TL;DR: Under what criteria does a rational acknowledgement of lacking evidence support an unsupported theory?

Why should the perfectly reasonable "I don't know what the truth is," get the addendum "so maybe God?" rather than "maybe wizard?" What reason or evidence besides cultural influence do you have to believe God is just as likely as any other hundred magical things you don't believe in without evidence?

(As a final note, I am aware of the "agnostic as adjective" spectrum of belief. While technically correct, I don't find it particularly useful a labeling system. Anyone who is gnostic about the existence of God, a being that by definition is able to do anything they God-damn want, including evade any and all scrutiny by puny mortals, just isn't thinking clearly. So I consider almost everyone agnostic, even those who believe God exists with 100% purity, because they will quickly say "Oh, well science can't prove He exists," which means "nothing can" as far as I'm concerned. So I use "agnostic" as a noun, the way most people do, to identify their belief on God as being unsure/undecided.)

DaystarEld 4 Apr 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

65 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

A simple definition of the two boils down to what do you believe and what do you know. Not sure the accuracy of the definition, but my take is atheist means I don't believe in gods, agnostic means that I don't know if there are gods (and perhaps due to my composition could never know).

In reality, I have found most agnostics are afraid to take a stand and say they don't believe in gods. They are a bit wishy-washy with the whole "Well, I just don't know, so I can't make a decision." Not saying all are like this, just the limited one's I have encountered and spoken too. I am agnostic when it comes to unicorns and leprechaun , in that yes, I don't know of any that exist, nor do I know if I will ever be able to know if they exist. Yet I have the courage to take that knowledge and form some assumptions that since I don't know of any, I infer (believe) they do not exist. Could I be wrong...absolutely. I am not so arrogant to think I have all the answers, but I am also no a coward to kowtow to public opinion and delusions by trying to stay on the fence with an "I don't know therefor I can't believe either way" excuse.

Honestly, I don't think it's typically enough of a difference of perspective to affect public policy, laws, and societal constructs in the majority of instances. Given that, I don't put too much effort into dissecting the nuances of the two.

12

This is, yet again, a failure to grasp the difference between Philosophical reality, (the world of imagination and concepts) and Practical reality (The Empirical reality we all share)

PROOF OF GOD

"“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

For the record I am IGNOSTIC, which makes me also Agnostic and Atheist by definition

Ignosticism is an Epistomologic position; it is a set of ideas refuting the importance of determining the existence of God. It claims that knowledge regarding the reality of God is altogether unprofitable.

It is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?

Bravo! Great breakdown.

Ignostic is a term I hadn't heard before. Time to do some research! ?

I'm also ignostic / igtheist.
I describe myself as an atheist mainly because it coveys my lack of belief without a long explanation.
Most people haven't heard the term and I've explained it more times than I care to anymore.
Hell, the Oxford Dictionary doesn't even have a definition for it. You need to Google it.

I'm sorry, your response is great, but I don't see anywhere in it an explanation of how the post is "a failure to grasp the difference between Philosophical reality and Practical reality," as you said at the beginning?

@DaystarEld The term A-Theist is addressing a belief in that Philosophical/Conceptual reality, that it is in fact a PRACTICAL Reality.
The Term Agnostic is an acknowledgement that you do not think there is evidence enough to make a conclusion, Lacking Gnosis (knowledge , often divine revealed knowledge) of God.
The One is addressing a Belief in a Concept (Philosophical reality)
The other is addressing the practical knowledge which you lack of that concept (Practical Reality)

Sure, but nothing in my original post refutes either of those assertions. You seem to be critiquing some statements I never made, unless you can point to some part of my OP where I said something that contradicts what you're saying?

@DaystarEld Your looking for EMPIRICAL (Practical Reality) proof of a CONCEPTUAL (Philosophical Reality) idea (God)

".In summation, due to social stigma, "atheism" is seen as an extreme view rather than the rational starting point (disbelief) of any unverifiable claim."
You are conflating inherent Atheism, like that of an infant (uninformed), with either weak or strong Atheism, and in either case it does not need to be active. That is you do not need to DIS believe, to unbeleive what you accept as real and true. Rather you fail to believe the tale without evidence and leave it in Philosophical reality instead of asserting it belongs in Practical reality as a fact.

"And so, many people consider themselves agnostics, despite having just as little reason to believe in God as anything else they have no evidence of."
Being Agnostic is not about belief in God, it is about Knowledge of God.
Theism is about belief in God.
A-theism is the lack of said belief.

You sound like Both.

Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your opening statement tells me you are still laboring under that.

This tells me you are viewing agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

Oh, I see, you're caught up in the semantics of "athiest" and "agnostic." I thought I made it clear in my final paragraph that I'm using Atheist and Agnostic in their noun forms, and not addressing the topic along the agnostic-gnostic spectrum of the position of knowledge, but I guess you missed that paragraph.

@DaystarEld NO, THAT IS my point.
In any communication TERMS must be agreed upon at the outset, or we are bound to miscommunicate.
The religion has purposely propagated a flase narrative about the terms themselves for hundreds of years for thier profit.

In its noun form the terms describe me or you, we become the object (not Atheism)
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.--Oxford

To me it looks like a form of black and white reasoning, when the reality is far more nuanced, and individualized and often unexamined by the person holding the beliefs as they grew up entrenched in them by the overarching society or traditions.

It is not caught up in, it is your oversimplification of them.
You seem to desire Atheism to mean not only your lack of belief, but your fervent denial of the claims of each and every religion (even those for which you are utterly ignorant and hence unable to speak intelligently, like some polyponesian tribal religion)
I do not have any reason to believe in any such things
But it looks arrogant and egotistical to me to go about declaring things false, when you are in fact ignorant of them.
To me the better thig to do in those cases would be simply to asert your lack of belief.

You seem to want Atheist to be a political position, a FIXED position, when Atheism is NOT a positon at all. It is t=not accepting the OTHERS position as valid.
Anything beyond that, disagreements with specific religions, dogmas and so on, would be other things like forms of anti-theism.

SO, when people like yourself propagate this view (which your entitled to), it makes this very conversation rather eternal
Because I land on the other side of it, I see it as a faliure to grasp philosophic ideas and understandings and hence a miscommunication.

When you propagate this view of Atheist, and I label as Atheist, but do not define Atheist
AND someone who heard and accepts yur definition encounters me, there is instant miscommunication, becauuse they assume your definition
(AND VICE VERSA) that is why this damn conversation is endlesss (and how language evolves)

I await the day that theists are so few the term Atheist is not needed

@Davesnothere You're taking this way past what I would consider the reasonable conclusion of the word's meaning. There is indeed a difference between an atheist and an anti-theist, but to claim that atheism is a "fervent denial" is you rather strongly missing the point of my original post, which is that skepticism does not require a conscious rejection of a claim: only the insufficient evidence for it.

I'm not trying to turn atheism into a political point, I'm simply saying that skepticism as the default is rational, and we should acknowledge this. We agree that theists have been setting the tone of conversation for too long, and yes, it would be great if atheism as a word no longer needed to exist, but to say that disagreements with specific religions and dogmas must necessarily be anti-theism instead seems to be trying too hard to seek neutrality.

And if you're too afraid of being arrogant to recognize the strength of your own rational epistemology, you're kind of proving my point: that religious culture has warped our attitudes on what it is reasonable to believe and disbelieve, to the point where even people like yourself seem to shy away from your own ability to say "I don't have to know what is true as an absolute to assert what is probably false." I bet you do it all the time with non-religious things, by the way you live your life, because you haven't been conditioned to fear offense or labels of "arrogance" for things like belief in astrology.

@DaystarEld With respect, Theism/Atheism are on a spectrum, but Gnosticism/Agnosticism are not. You either know something or you don't, so it's simply Yes or No, whether the notion that you possess that knowledge is True or False, Gnostic or Agnostic (No spectrum).

@DarrellBurnett I do not see much of a spectrum for a belief question like theism either, you either believe or you do not believe.
If you have tweaked the belief because you do not like parts of its dogma, it is nonetheless a belief to which you either subscribe or do not subscribe to.

@DarrellBurnett, @DaystarEld Not claiming that Atheism is a fervent denial, but that seems to be how your using the term.

You seem to fall into that old paradigm from theology.

Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your opening statement tells me you are still laboring under that.

This tells me you are viewing agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

I think we are in agreement on principals, and just hung up on linguistics.

@Davesnothere No, I'm not saying they are points on a line, in fact I'm saying that Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two separate 'lines'. I'm fairly certain I was clear that was what I was saying.

@DarrellBurnett At some points you are quite clear, but in others you were not, at least to me.

Like this
"And if you're too afraid of being arrogant to recognize the strength of your own rational epistemology, you're kind of proving my point: that religious culture has warped our attitudes on what it is reasonable to believe and disbelieve, to the point where even people like yourself seem to shy away from your own ability to say "I don't have to know what is true as an absolute to assert what is probably false."

This, to me, is a very clear conflation between the conceptual Philosophical idea of God, which is both unfalsifiable and never proven (hence not worthy of belief)
As an insitance it is FALSE (which cannot be proven Philosophicaly) because it lacks any evidence in practical reality.

Which makes it overall seem like you think that many people calling themselves Agnostic are in error and NEED to declare not only Atheism but Gnostic Atheism (which is also a faith based position as the claim itself is unfalsifiable)

@Davesnothere That is NOT a quote from me that you have included as one of your examples of me not being clear. I have never typed the word 'Epistemology' in my whole life. Well, until just then, obviously!

@Davesnothere I did specifically state in my last paragraph of the post that I am not speaking of the agnostic/gnostic paradigm for atheism/theism, but rather the use of "agnostic" to mean "I can't decide one way or the other, so I will refrain from taking a stand in either sense."

@DarrellBurnett Sorry, I conflated Darrell and Daystar
Probably how I got so confused on your positions, got lost in the thread.

THIS is what I am talking about.
""I can't decide one way or the other, so I will refrain from taking a stand in either sense."
Exactly what is there to take a stand on?
A theist makes a fantastic claim which I do not believe because of its fantastic nature.
Non belief is the null stance, the default of which is not denial of the claim of the Theist.
Once a person denies the unfalsifiable claim of the theist they assume the impossible burden of proof no theist has ever met.
Why do that?
Why take an inferior position, based on faith (belief your conclusions are absolutely, 100% correct) with an unfalsifiable claim which was never proven by the claimant?

To make it sound like your "taking a Stand", is to make a claim.
What is it that you are claiming?
That there is not a God?
Is your idea of the God any better formed or defined that the theists undefined or undefinable God which the fail to prove?

Why assume the Theists burden of proof for them?

@Davesnothere Because that's not how skepticism works. Being an atheist does not mean stating with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. It just means that you don't believe in them. It just means you're skeptical of them, just like you're skeptical of a thousand other kinds of God or supernatural being.

There's no reason to shy away from the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God, or that Jesus or Yahweh don't exist as deities, or whatever specific religious claim is made probably isn't true. The idea that it's claiming too much or is arrogant to say is an idea that religious people propagate so that they can discourage people from feeling confident in their skepticism.

@DaystarEld T
I agree with this.
"Being an atheist does not mean stating with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist."
and this
"There's no reason to shy away from the claim that there is insufficient evidence to believe in God"
BUT
THIS is a counter claim based on an unfalsifiable position. It is philosophically unsound.
" or that Jesus or Yahweh don't exist as deities"

You or I can point out a thousand inconsistencies, contradictions of text, dogma and so forth, but that will never rise to some proof that the claim is outright false.
You second point on that
"or whatever specific religious claim is made probably isn't true" is about PRACTICAL REALITY, the inability of any theist to prove the assertion as evidence of the reality it probably is not true and therefore not worth believing.

ie, the NULL position. I do not believe the claim, and have no reason or impetus to actively claim it false. All I have are my own rationales, which make their claim unbelieveable.
To claim it probably is NOT TRUE, is a statement of belief, not fact.

Which makes it just as faith based as the theist position.

To me the only proper sound position is "There is no evidence for the assertion, therefore no reason to believe it." NOTHING more is needed.

Nor is this an idea religious people proagate, it is basic Philosophical thought.

"because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

LET ME REPRASE because I think we agree but are miscommunicating.
For shorthand I will use C for concetptual philosophical claims, and P for Practical/ real world claims

A theist is claiming that their <C> God is in fact Real<P>.
As an Atheist I do not believe this God <C> is in fact in existence <P>.
I can give a lot of reason why (So can you)
I cannot however disprove the God <C> in which that theist believes (C&P utterly conflated)
I also cannot disprove, Aliens, Bigfoot, Nessie, Moby Dick, Spiderman, and so on, because they are <C>concepts.
I can prove they are VERY unlikely, so improbable as to be impossible in my own mind ( Tacic belief via faith, meaning TRUST in the utter lack of any evidence)

HOWEVER, I can NEVER prove that the Concept of God <C> is false. Both because it is purely conceptual and unfalsifiable.

Thusly, if you say to any believer that "God does not exist", all you get is a hostile reaction, because for them C&P are ONE in that regaurd, via Faith.
It is a dead end communicatively. They shut down.
Secondarily, if you do that you are also making a claim, that the concept of God <C>, which is Unknown, incredibly individual and cultural, often undefined or undefinable, is in all cases, false.
Which is a claim no one can honestly make without some kind of certain evidence of the mind of every person ever, philosophically.
So, why make that claim if it is unfalsifiable itself and you cannot prove it, and in fact are relying upon the failure of the theist to prove their claim as the evidence of your own claim?

Because theists conflate the Conceptual world and the Practical world via faith, challanging their concepts directly is most often a dead end, that is why debats rarely go anywhere.
Debates have value for people watching them, because many of the people who are watching them are actually fence sitters, they are weighing these weighty issue for themselves.

I do not think that tactic is valid, that is the David Silverman appraoch, and I think it causes more harm than good because of how most people think. It has its place as a civil rights issue, ie "we are here and have a right to exist, get used to us" value, all on its own.

I much prefer the Bertrand Russel, Michalel Shermer approach, instead of just saying "Hey, your God idea is false." and causing instant conflict and an end to communication, a defensive reation in the theist.
I ask them questions, usually "What is God?" because they do not know, God is a mystery and it OPENS doors.

Every sinlge Atheist I know , or have read, or seen who is not simply implicit, but who is considered. Any Atheist who REASONED their way into that position did so by asking themselves those same questions.

It seems much more productive to me to stand in that Null position and ask pointed questions than to shift to that hard claim "There is no God" and cause an instant defensive reaction in my fellow human, when my own hope is for that same human to actually ask themselves those same damn questions.

@Davesnothere I think we agree more than we disagree. I don't know if I just wrote it poorly or you misread me, but my whole point is not that you can PROVE that any given gods don't exist, but that you don't NEED to in order to be skeptical of them.

As for semantics of how that's presented to other people, I would never say "Your god doesn't exist." I would say "There's no empirical evidence that your god exists" or "There's no logic that leads me to believe your god exists" or so on. But in reality I would actually just go into Socratic Questioning of "What do you mean by God?" and "What convinced you that that concept of God exists and not this other one that X people believe?" and so on.

@DaystarEld When it comes to semantics for talking to believers, I simply stick to the Socratic and use questions for which they oft have no aswer or an answer they thmselves do not fee much confidence in, and then ask why that is.

9

Sorry, this post is way too long for me.

marga Level 7 Apr 14, 2018

I thought so too! I can read a book in hand or an essay in print but on the screen it is just harder to focus

Are you aware what "TL;DR" means? It stands for "Too long, didn't read".. He gives a TL;DR summary in his last couple paragraphs..

@Loud_Love....... Okay....for me it's still too long. 🙂

@marga - Lol, kk.. Understood 😀

8

I'm an atheist. There is no evidence for any God, not a scrap. (Same is true of unicorns, fairies etc etc). Show me some evidence, and by that I don't mean stories from the Bronze Age, and I'll reconsider it. Were I an agnostic, I would have to be equally agnostic about all Gods, past and present, including Apollo and the ancient Gods. I would have to hold the Christian God and the God Apollo, for example, in the same light and be equally agnostic about both. I would feel foolish to say that. I agree with the great Bertrand Russell when he wrote that in reality agnostics don't either. They're are agnostic about the god they grew up with and functionally atheist about the rest. That's not a consistent position for me. Moreover, agnostics often say God is unknowable, thus we should be agnostic. This assumption is based on what? A God, as a concept of omnipotence and omniscience, is only as knowable as it chose it be. A thundering from the heavens, a cosmic voice and face in the sky, and, oh hell, let's move a mountain 10 feet to the left, and God would be pretty bloody knowable in my view. So, unknowability isn't a sound argument either.

For these reasons, in short, I am an atheist and not an agnostic.

6

Why do you care so much about what others think? If you're getting so many negative opinions - why are you talking about it so much? You either believe or you don't or you're either sure or you aren't - how you label that is your call if you're the type that requires a label. This is a personal thing and since I've never worn my non-theism on my sleeve I've not ever had to consider what others think about me nor have I challenged their views. It's just not that big a deal compared to things like "can I pay this month's mortgage, the price of a gallon of gas, the cost of filling the fridge, being there for our kids whenever they need us" and so on. In my opinion you care too much about what others think, you're looking to define yourself with an acceptable label and you put way too much thought into this.

I think you may have misunderstood the post 🙂 It's not about what labels people use, but rather the reason for being an atheist over an agnostic in terms of the epistemic difference between the two positions.

4

Agnosticism is not "I think there might be a god" or "I'm not sure there is a god". As originally posited by Huxley, it is the position that there is no defensible knowledge position for or against the existence of god because invisible beings and realms are non-falsifiable by design. This is known as "hard" agnosticism.

Since then, some people have taken up the "soft" agnostic position that they just don't personally know at this time, or aren't sure, but it really isn't, as you point out, a defensible position and not really what agnosticism means, philsophically speaking.

I've never been able to understand soft agnostics: what sort of information could possibly come their way to resolve their indecision? If it's nothing but the usual personal subjective experiences and leap-of-faith "insights" that inform theism, then they are simply unconvinced (or insufficently convinced) of theism and their position can only lead either nowhere, or to yet more theism.

Thank you!

@TheMiddleWay Well you're probably not going to like this but I wasn't arguing that atheists are, generally, soft agnostics. They are hard agnostics for the most part. I also am.

Atheism is the belief position; agnosticism is the knowledge position.

My knowledge position is that I can't support a knowledge claim that there are or are not any gods. My belief position is that there's no reason to believe that there are any gods. The reason for the lack of knowledge claim either way is non-falsifiability of the god hypothesis; the reason for the lack of belief is the lack of any substantiation for theism's asserted central truth.

4

Excellent post. I agree with you 99.9% 😉

A point to clarify in any of these discussions is what "god" you are referring to, because that alone is important to many. Most atheists and anti-theists are reacting to the belief of the Abrahamic god of the Koran, Talmud and Bible... you know, the big three religions of the world that pretty well define monotheism.

On the point of clearly defining what atheists and agnostics actually believe - good fucking luck. Look at my string of posts and responses on this subject - it's a hobby horse of mine to have succinct definitions of these terms for the sake of clear communication, but every agnostic and atheist here will woop yer ass for trying to define THEIR belief.

My favourite "theist - atheist" scale is an adaptation of Dawkin's to be found here:

[niceguyjim.com]

I've always considered myself a 6.9 on that scale.

4

For me, I don’t think I’m ready to “believe” god can’t exist. I’m still dissecting my own personal thoughts, striving for a slippery absolution on where I stand. I definitely hesitate , in part, because of my kids. I’m not sure if I could hold to disbelief if something were to happen to them, I’m not sure I would be able to find what it would seem to take to get through a tragedy like that. All things considered, I’m living in a relatively comfortable portion of life-it’s easy to take mental risk and explore. Without any emotional turbulence logic tends to be very clear cut. Agnostic seems to describe what I’m personally comfortable admitting as honestly as I know how.

4

It's never been a real issue for me. Agnostic/Atheist it's all just labels. Which label is stuck on me doesn't really matter.

Disagree 🙂 I think the two labels reflect very different perspectives on the question of God. Even if you dislike the labels themselves, we can still distinguish between someone who feels confident in saying that God probably doesn't exist, and someone who is unsure one way or other.

Another way to say it is that agnosticism is about what we know atheism is about what we believe. We can be both an atheist and an agnostic, we believe there is no doG, but we can't know there is no doG (dyslexic here). On the other hand believers can be agnostic too, they can't know there is a God, but they believe there is a God.

@DaystarEld I don't like or dislike either of them. I'm pretty indifferent to both. I don't particularly care about the different perspectives or whatever. FOR ME, the two labels are irrelevant, because I just don't care. You obviously care about any differences in the labels. We are on different pages.

@Shethatb Ah, so at risk of adding yet another label on, you sound more like an apatheist than anything ;P

@DaystarEld I've never heard of that but just looking at the base word, and the definition I'm guessing indifferent to god/gods. That would be me. Thanks...🙂

3

I'm an atheist. Call yourself what you wish.

3

Sorry I don't read these posts about 'words' i find it extremely boring.' Somewhere on this site there is a discussion site for people who want to debate words -I am godless and always was . End of!

Exactly! What she said.

3

Fucking fence sitters. You don’t actively believe in a deity? You’re an atheist.

Marz Level 7 May 2, 2018

I'm an agnostic atheist.

YES!!!

If you aren't interested in the debate, no one is forcing you to take part. But calling people "fucking fence sitters" is gratuitous rudeness. Why say something bad about someone else when there is no need to?

@citronella I think this is the most pointless argument Atheists debate. It mostly just creates division and confusion. I say “fucking fence sitters”, because I really don’t care to debate something almost no one cares about. Fucking fence sitters..

@Marz And I think looking for reasons to insult someone else is a fucking rude action. Being a bully is a shitty thing to do, and it's not like you are defending yourself or are in psychological or actual danger. You just want to say something nasty. Knock yourself out, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

@citronella “fence sitter” is insulting, nasty, shitty and rude? Okay.

3

Most of these discussions miss the point which is why they get so mucky. For instance, the way you are talking about "God" begs the question "Which one?" Not once did you say "a God", as if failing to acknowledge there is a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu God(s), let alone the other 2000+ God(s) man has invented. The real question should be do you believe the Bible or the Quaran, or any other religion. Those are easier to refute, beginning with the fact that they are mutually exclusive, and progressing to their inaccuracies, contradictions, and highly suspect & shady origins. Once you dispense with religions, the question of a God becomes mostly to totally irrelevant. We need a word which describes our disbelief in religions, not God.

3

No labels, I am not a jar.

and I am not ajar

@btroje Brilliant... you almost make me 'wish to be an ajar jar... Excellent!!!

3

I call myself an atheist.
This is how I word the definition: I lack belief in a god(s).

By not proclaiming in a positive way that a god(s) does not exist, I avoid the inevitable "prove he doesn't exist" rebuttal leaving the theist with the burden of proof resting in their lap.

After explaining what the burden of proof means and how it applies to positive claims, I may be asked if I'm 100% sure god doesn't exist. To this, I will answer I don't know.

Then comes, "So you think there's a chance that there could be a god?"
No... it means that I don't know and niether do you. This is a perfectly legit answer.

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.

~Richard P. Feynman

3

I am agnostic on unicorns

you ride agnostic unicorns or are only agnostic when on a unicorn?

@jacpod does to say that one is one thing at some time mean one is not other times, also?
are you really from derry, Ballymoney.

@CallMeDave originally from Lee green London but lived all over the place since I left home at 15 y.o. now 70 y.o - .No I live in Ballycastle County Antrim four minutes from the sea in sheltered accommodation.(there wasn't that option on the form I filled in to sign up here)I have been here over 25 years - I used to be a member of Foyle Advocates in Derry so know the places quite well - Do you have connections here?

@jacpod why yes, I do now, but only the flimsiest.

3

I just use "freethinker" and call myself a cultural Jew.

I identify as freethinker, too. 🙂

You know that a lot of religious people also call themselves freethinkers. I've known them. Freethinkers and they believe their religion too. Whatever you or I might think about that, the term freethinker is open to interpretation. So, I can't accept the term as synonymous or relating to a non religious view, like atheist and agnostic.I just make this point. @marga

@David1955 However you want to believe is your choice.

btw, imo all terms are open to interpretation.

3

I use Atheist because it's so pointy and final.

2

I agree with you on almost all of this. However, I would clarify, and I'm sure you'll be in some agreement on this based on my understanding of your post, Gnosticism and Theism are different propositions. (Please correct me if you have different views, I don't want to misunderstand you.)
Theism has to do with belief. If you believe in a god, you are theist. If you don't (and that includes I'm not sure, or I don't know but maybe) you're an atheist. This is by logical definition. You are either "A" or "Not A." Because "A" is "A," and "A" is not "Not A."
Gnosticism has to deal with a claim of knowledge. You either claim it or you do not. There cannot logically be a middle ground. You can say you don't care, but if you are not actively in the positive you are not that thing. I doesn't mean you accept the negative, just you don't believe the positive. Gnosticism has nothing to do with that because there is no claim of knowledge.
My atheism is the rejection of claims in god/s, it is not the assertion that there are none. I personally, would argue that there are no god/s...this is an active positive claim and I am required to defend my own claims if I want others to take them seriously. However, not believing someone else's claim does not preclude I have an obligation to prove them wrong. Ergo, if I say there are no gods, it is not anyone else's burden to prove my claim wrong, but mine to prove it right.
And lastly, real quick, as to the concept of possibility. Is it possible and god/s, unicorns, etc. exist? I have no idea. It maybe impossible or possible, but I'm still on the null hypothesis. I bring this up because I believe you use this well. I would argue that I don't fault those for calling themselves agnostic, because I believe that are still struggling with this unproven belief that anything is possible. I come across this idea a lot that just because something can't be shown to be impossible that it is possible. When let us face it, you can't say if it is or isn't possible.
I think you used the concept of probable well. Since we cannot say to 100% anything is possible or impossible, we have to work within the reality in which we are presented.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." —Sherlock Holmes

This is a joke, because how could one eliminate "ALL which is impossible." Cannot be done. It's also funny we go from all impossibilities to improbabilities.

Food of thought.

2

I'm an atheist. You can call yourself whatever you want. You can justify it in a way to make you seem superior but, you aren't. Your post is just mental masturbation.

2

ALL Atheists, are, by definition, Agnostic-Atheists. People can CLAIM to be Gnostic-Atheists, but lack that ultimate certain knowledge required to be one, no matter how much and how loudly they insist that they do. Some people want to distance themselves from the word 'Atheist' by calling themselves 'Agnostic', even though Theism\Atheism and Gnosticism\Agnosticism are completely seperate things and are not mutually exusive concepts, the former being about belief, the latter being about knowledge.

2

I'm with Penn Jellette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:
We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic
There ain't no all powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist

And I agree with Sam and Christropher,... I am also an anti-theist. I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

2

Nonbeliever.
I think the god paradigm is ridiculous, yet so many still toil within it, just as intended by those who devised it.

2

Interesting. I'm new to this site and am amazed by many of the posts. I have studied and talked with many different people and still don't understand a belief in a supeior all-knowing being. If there is such, why would the world be like it is?

@Scoobs The god most religions describe will fix their problems or give them a beautiful reward when they croak.

2

I believe agnostic is the more accurate overall term. You may be atheist, but you CAN'T prove a negative. Wishing won't make it so. You have no more evidence for atheism than a Christian does for belief. So why don't you knock off trying to sow dissention in the ranks?

Atheist is a belief claim and agnostic is a knowledge claim. Atheist is not a positive claim. Atheist is "I am not convinced by the available evidence". Agnostic broken down is, A, meaning without, and Gnostic being Greek for knowledge. Classically it means that a person believes that we cannot have knowledge about the supernatural or that we cannot know ultimate truth. The usage changed to a position between belief and denial which I argue doesn't exist. You are either convinced of the evidence or you aren't.

@BrightTyger979 I'm convinced this thread is about mostly men who want all of us to accept the "atheist" label because they can't bear to be wrong. It's trivial.

@AMNOTGOD My intellect is anything but "wee," and I don't blow fuses because I am a current model of a woman, plebe. When you can speak to a comment by or opinion of a woman without a derisive and misogynistic tone, perhaps you will be taken seriously on this board. The point of this "atheist boys club" is well understood by me, and it is trivial and argumentative for ego's sake.

You don't have to prove a negative. It's up to people proposing supernatural claims to prove them. Would you say that I cannot claim to be an a-leprechaunist because I can't prove they don't exist? Of course not. Same with God. Guess what, I'm not an agnostic about leprechauns either. The atheist position is consistent about all unproven claims.

@David1955 Okay...atheists believe their is no creator in the sky who made man. I agree. There is still no PROOF atheists are right. It is up to atheists to prove they are right, just as it believers to prove there is a Sky Captain forging their destinies. You cannot scientifically say, "I'm not the one who's wrong because I'm not a nutty believer." The burden of proof is just as much on you to prove there is no god, and that does not mean you are wrong because the evidence has not presented itself yet. It's not justified to declare only atheists are omniscient and correct, however. That is not science. When you refuse to make room for doubt, you lift your nonbelief above others, and that is simply obnoxious. A strong mark of intelligence is being able to hold two opposing opinions as POSSIBLE TRUTH when neither is proven.

Oh Granny, what a huge ego you have!

@hemingwaykitten no, no. It's a basic point of science and enquiry. Proposition forwarded, proposition fails or succeeds based on the evidence, if the evidence does not support the proposition then it fails. It is not up to nonbelievers of the proposition to prove it is wrong. What if I use the reverse the argument. Do you believe in witches? If you don't then please reply showing me your evidence why witches do NOT exist. It's up to you, according to you, to prove to those who do believe in them why they do not exist. I look forward to your answer. (unless of course you at an agnostic on witches too) .

@hemingwaykitten Seriously? You're going to play the sexism card? If your "go to" is attacking someone and name calling in a simple discussion then I guess I'm just going to have to put you on ignore. You don't just get to claim sexism when someone says something you don't agree with.

@BrightTyger979 @hemingwaykitten yes, there's no sexism here. Only arguments that do or don't stack up. I respect people's right to be agnostic, but not arguments against atheism that are not valid.

@David1955 I'm exhausted. You can't prove a god or gods do not exist, and I cannot grasp why you insist you don't need evidence to be an atheist. I don't understand your argument and find it suspect. Go be right and perfect with my good wishes. My curiosity has been sufficently squashed. Why do you bother to claim there is no sexism here? You did not address the instigator of the sexism or his comments. Once again I must assume I should be in agreement because "David1955 says so."

The copious amounts of sexism and misogyny I have experienced in just two weeks on this site, including negging and belittling, have made me feel ill just fathoming why they would occur from men on Agnostic.com. Not you personally at all, let me make that clear. I am in the grips of a migraine and can only take my interest and IQ and go home at the moment. However AMNOTGOD and dozens of others have dissipated the enthusiasm I initially felt on finding fellow my fellow heathens. Apparently for many of us the attraction here is not to enjoy each other's company so much as argue and insult. I can find that on Facebook.

@hemingwaykitten @Renickulous One cannot "prove" the non existence of any mythical fairy story, but one can apply the test of "reductio ad absurdum".

@Renickulous You jerks are STILL at this B.S.? For nonbelievers you sure can't shut up about labels.

2

So I looked up the definition of god according to Merriam Webster and there are multiple definitions. I think we sometimes make assumptions as to understanding what god means..All knowing..Well if all the knowledge of the inner workings of the universe does exist than the summation of that would be all knowledge. Perhaps at least in analogy, there is a supercomputer regulating the laws of the universe. All powerful, maybe there is a superinternet too. I clearly like to remind myself that I do not know everything nor do I understand fully other's interpretation of what is god and that is why I tend toward the word agnostic when I identify my beliefs. And you are right that labels can be limiting, because at times people feel the need to defend their labels out of some need to be right or not feel foolish. Also, labels may lead people to make false assumptions about the limitations of who they converse with in so far as being able to understand or alter their own way of thinking.

<3

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:57852
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.