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:
-
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.
-
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.)
14
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 (26 - 50)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Because I do not belive in some omnipotent poo-bah, not one tiny bit.....
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Apr 14, 2018
2
I'm an atheist. I don't believe any gods have EVER existed, at any time.
Period. It's not that hard.
Oh, and I used atheist as a noun.
KKGator
Level 9
Apr 14, 2018
2
@rogeralyn It seems you're conflating the terms "believe" and "know." What point would there be in proving whether or not you believe something or not? You either belief the claim or you don't. This question would only work if the person says they know with 100% certainty that no gods exist. In the same sense @KKGator is basically saying there is no good reason to think or believe that gods have existed as gods have never been demonstrated for as long as there have been human inquiry. All god beliefs require logical fallacies or "poor" evidence to back the claims up. Ex: God of the Gaps Fallacy, Anecdotal Evidence, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question, and Special Pleading. (All religions known to man consistently fail this test and often use the same poor reasoning and come to completely different conclusions, thus making it unreliable.) Many claims have been made by world religion that are demonstrably false, especially ones in science. The Bible, for instance, claims that man was poofed into existence in their current form (Genesis), while evolution does not. The difference? Evolution has evidence and the Bible does not have evidence to back this up. The Bible has a claim and reverts back to the claim as the evidence. This is a mix of Circular Reasoning and Appealing to Authority--both fallacious forms of argumentation. On top of that if Genesis in the Bible is seemingly false then "Original Sin" is out of the equation. This means the Bible has no justification left. No Original Sin, no reason for anything else including the supposed Jesus sacrifice.
Person A: I can jump twenty feet in the air. (has burden of proof)
Person B: Can you prove it? If you can't then I "don't believe" you. (No burden of proof).
In the same sense an atheist is perfectly justified in not believing unfounded claims about the universe. This is the not the same as asserting that you know with 100% certainty. There is also no good reason to believe the claim made by Person A as they failed to demonstrate it and there is no evidence (currently) to suggest that the claim is true--so why believe it?
I'm going to assume you don't believe in centaurs. Do you fervently believe there are no centaurs or are you unconvinced by the claim that centaurs have existed? If you're unconvinced then does that mean you have made it your belief system? Can you prove that you don't believe centaurs have existed? Then only thing you could say is: Um yeah, I don't believe they do. The question itself doesn't make much sense.
There is no god or supernatural and I call myself atheist to de-stigmatize it.
RandyMoose
Level 7
July 11, 2018
0
I call myself atheist, only if asked ,mainly because it shuts people up - they usually say something like "oh thats sad!" and I usually shrug and leave. I don't proseletyse in any way to other people and never ask them their religion mostly because it isnt interesting to me but also because I find it tedious to talk about something that has no impact on my life. I don't go in for thinking about terms just whatever it takes to get people to realise I am godless & to stop harrassing me.
jacpod
Level 8
June 14, 2018
1
I think it takes more courage to say "atheist" than "agnostic". As the historical crow flies, it hasn't been that long since organized religion had the power to ex-communicate and ostracize people who didn't believe a certain way; the condemnation of the Inquisition and the burning of witches is not all that long ago in humanity's collective memory. They imprisoned, tortured, and burned alive even religious people! So what chance would an openly professed atheist stand under such circumstances? "Agnostic" is much safer . . . Why do many agnostics and atheists keep quiet in school and workplace? I don't think it's because their values and logic are in need of repair so much as it's a perceived issue of safety and not being isolated or ostracized. Perhaps such fear is no longer reasonable but for older people especially, history casts a long shadow.
Roger
Level 2
May 31, 2018
1
I call myself both, because they both apply. Gnosis refers to knowledge, and theism to belief, so since I do not know there are no gods but, based on the current evidence (and the weakness of the arguments supporting theism), do not believe they exist that makes me an agnostic atheist.
I've met a few gnostic atheists, but frankly find their position even more absurd than gnostic theists. The people I admire most are the agnostic theists, since it takes some guts in America to openly admit there is no compelling evidence for god even tho you do believe in one.
BooksCatsEtc
Level 4
May 21, 2018
1
I call myself an atheist. I don't believe in a superior being controlling the universe. I don't have superior knowledge; I am human. But I am intelligent enough to realize that religions are no more than inventions and are just man-made feel good methods of satisfying the superstitious population. Bottom line - atheist - meaning non-believer in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
tubabob
Level 4
May 12, 2018
1
Agnostic and nostic are truth statement what you claim to know.Athiest and thiest is what you claim to believe.
Im not a thiest so by default im an atheist..
I can also be a agnostic athiest or a nostic Athiest.
I consider myself a anti-thiest. I won't use it while debating because the theist has the burrdon of proof that god exist... No need to shift that burrdon back to myself.
Rdurham
Level 5
May 5, 2018
1
I prefer the term nontheist. Not "I don't believe in god" but "I believe there are no gods"
Robohauler
Level 2
May 3, 2018
1
Nostic/Agnostic is a position of Knowledge. No, I do not know there is or isn't something that exists that could be labeled god. Therefore I call myself Agnostic. Knowlege can be demonstrated.
Theist/Atheist is a position of belief. I have no reason to believe there is a god, therefore I do not and call myself an Atheist.
The Atheist position answers 1 question, I do not believe is god/gods. It does NOT assert a positive claim that there is NO god/gods. That is a claim that yields the burdun of proof on the one making the claim, which is just as unverifiable, untestable, and unfalsifiable as claiming a god does exist.
They are not 2 words identifying the same thing.
Proto
Level 6
Apr 26, 2018
1
I call myself agnostic because even though my beliefs are strong, I am willing to admit that none of us likely KNOW what exists and what doesn't out there. Any religion could be correct. They could even all be correct in one way or another. There is no conclusive proof, in my opinion, that anyone is correct or not correct in entirety.
Ravensasha121
Level 5
Apr 25, 2018
1
I found your post cogent & I find that I agree on many points. I label myself an agnostic-atheist. I don't believe, but can't prove the existence or non-existence of a diety. tho I myself might phrase it somewhat differently I find that I can go along pretty much with the Jerry DeWitt quote, "Skepticism is my Nature, Freethought is my Methodology, Agnosticism is my Conclusion, Atheism is my Opinion & Humanitarianism is my Motivation."
phxbillcee
Level 10
Apr 18, 2018
1
Labels are helpful but I label myself on how I function in life, rather than what I can imagine or know. I am a functional atheist. I live my life here and now. I don’t live my life in fear or guilt. No fear of hell. No guilt because I think some deity is looking out for me while millions starve and worse. I think it is more important what action I take. As far as stretching my mind to what I wish, hope, or could imagine, I see no point. If I’m wrong and some one or many gods exist, I don’t see them affecting my life so there’s no point in worrying about it.
Jenmcjen
Level 6
Apr 18, 2018
1
I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in gods. Or any other "supernatural" thing for that matter. I think that on the macro-level, in this world what you see is what you get. Saying you're agnostic is simply saying you don't know for certain about something. While in the strictest sense I'm agnostic about the existence of god, the whole thing is so unlikely, that I just go all the way with atheist.
JimGreenamyer
Level 3
Apr 17, 2018
1
@Scoobs It's true that the more physics I read, the weirder it gets. It seems as though matter is kind of illusory, and that all there really is is energy. Still, I think I can safely dispense with gods. So far, after peeling away quite a few layers, it's all still natural. No fairies at the bottom of the garden.
For me, an atheist is certain there is no god, and an agnostic says I do not believe in god because I see no evidence that god exists.
I think it is arrogant to assert that you can be certain there is no god. It is beyond the competency of human knowledge to be so certain about the unknown.
PaulIvice
Level 4
Apr 17, 2018
1
I totally agree
In my mind agnosticism is just another term for "playing it safe"...I do not believe in dieties; the whole concept Is, in my View, ridiculous. I am an atheist; I will die an atheist, and my atoms will disperse into the universe from whence they came. Agnosticism = " I'm a vegetarian, but just in case I always pack a bacon sarnie"
MickBarton1957
Level 4
Apr 17, 2018
1
I think you'll find that there is a 'group' set up for this dicussion as so many want to talk about it. I don't know if I am in it right now but I prefer to call myself Jac.
jacpod
Level 8
Apr 15, 2018
1
It reminds me of every group session I have had with people who are political who spend all the available time talking about how the talking should happen - without ever getting round ot anything of consequence - thank f to think that I am out of all of that nonsense
I feel that Atheist is a better position to avoid annoying debates with Theists. I am happy to talk to people about belief, but I don't appreciate the attitudes that most religious people have about religion.
I am just as certain that I exist, as I am that God does not exist.
arnies
Level 7
Apr 15, 2018
1
That's a pretty succinct summary. I have about as much faith in the existence of God as I do in my own existence as a Boltzmann Brain.
Because Atheist is the technically correct term.
WileEQuixote
Level 7
Apr 14, 2018
1
It's the technical term for atheists, maybe. The rest of world may not agree...but in any case, whatever they wish to identify as is okay. They should have just as much support as do atheists. But the atheists on this site seem to have taken it over. There is very little meaningful exchange of thoughts and ideas.
@marga I mean, it's religion, there's not a whole lot of depth of discussion to exchange ideas over when the core of the belief is utterly false.
@WileEQuixote See, this is what I mean. If they don't share your belief, their core belief "is utterly false". Right away you are cutting off honest communication; after all, who wants to exchange ideas when they're being maligned for different views?
@marga I don’t engage Flat Earthers either.
The burden of proof is on the Believer.
In 2018 years they’ve never been successful.
Sometimes there’s truly nothing to debate.
@WileEQuixote Yes, with a closed mind, debating is useless.
@marga Do we debate gravity? Some things aren't about a "closed mind" they're about facts in the world, and there's no point in discussing them.
@WileEQuixote Yes, I can see that.
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
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.