Agnostic.com

19 3

Matt Dilahunty once made the statement that "Atheists are those that don't BELIEVE in a god, and agnostics are those that don't KNOW.... that they're atheists". Do you agree with that?

  • 19 votes
  • 16 votes
Sdusmith 5 Apr 29
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

19 comments

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

0

That's funny. I've always said atheism answers No to a belief claim and agnosticism answers No to a knowledge claim. Technically we're all atheist and agnostic on many things.

I would agree with that.

0

Sadly, Matt is incorrect here, I already KNOW I am not an atheist, because I already KNOW that "I DON'T BELIEVE the statement 'Gods do/don't exist' is either true or false." The keyword being BELIEVE. Atheists BELIEVE; agnostics either KNOW or DON'T KNOW.

BELIEVING, to me, means "thinking a statement is true or false regardless of proof". KNOWING is "thinking a statement is true on the basis of proof." Proof, in this context, being statements logical derived from accurate and precise rules describing repeatable observable phenomenon (Science!).

I don't like to commit the act of BELIEVING, I prefer to either KNOW or DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW if the statement "gods do/don't exist" is either true or false. I also KNOW that I DON'T BELIEVE the statement "god's do/don't exist" is either true or false. Again, I try not to commit the act of 'believing' anything, unless I need to do it and see immediate result (elections, experiments). Atheists, by observational (empirical) definition, seem to BELIEVE the statements 'gods do not exist' is true and "gods do exist" is false, regardless of proof.

In that context, Matt is wrong. I do already KNOW I'm not an atheist. 🙂

You've got this kinda backward. Atheism is a position on only one of the two propositions: a god exists. It's true that either one does or doesn't. But Atheism is not a position on, a can't nessecarily be extrapolated to both.

For example: I do not believe/accept the proposition that a god exists. If that accurately describes you, you are by definition an atheist. Whether you believe a god does not exist is irrelevant. They are two different claims requiring two different answers. It's logically possible to disbelieve both claims.

So if you think it's not possible to KNOW the factual answers to the questions Does a god exist, an Do gods NOT exist is of no consequence. As long as you don't accept the claim that they do, you're an atheist.

2

Actually I believe even Dawkins said there is no proof there is no god. But as there is no proof, you'd have to be very silly indeed to believe

0

if one doesn't know if there is a god, then they are not practicing the cult

2

I voted yes because under they beliefs of most religions they would be considered non-believers, infidels, or whatever.

Carin Level 8 May 3, 2019

But should we define ourselve with respect to religion, or independently from it?

@MakeItGood Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should find their identity in terms of religion. I did that for many years and have no interest in doing it or having others do it. But when discussing ideas, it's just easier to use the appropriate and common lables.

2

People are confused because they want a way to not be offensive. When someone claims to believe in unicorns they have no problem being offensive because society says its ok to blast people for believing in ridiculous things.. It's mostly just caving to society saying its offensive to say god doesn't exist but its ok to say IDK. They want a third choice so bad because of it but either there is or isn't a god, no third choice really exists. Its always on the people making the claim to prove it but they can't so they have turned the rules upside down for this one special case.

I agree, to a certain extent. I don't know is a perfectly valid answer to a question. Some things still aren't clearly evident, so to respond with "dunno" seems intellectually honest.

But to accesrt there is a god just because it hasn't been disproven or because you don't have a better answer is definitely asinine.

0

People are confused because they want a way to not be offensive but when someone claims to believe in unicorns they have no problem being offensive because society says its ok to blast people for believing in ridiculous things.. It's mostly just caving to society saying its offensive to say god doesn't exist but its ok to say IDK. They want their to be a third choice so bad because of it but either there is or isn't a god, no third choice really exists. Its always on the people making the claim to prove it but they can't so they have turned the rules upside down for this one special case.

I respectfully disagree. I pay no heed to the level of offense because that can change from place to place, person to person. I care about proper thinking, in this case knowing the difference between knowing and believing a statement is either true or false. It's a tough line walk, but it matters to me. I don't care if it offends atheists or theists. I either know or don't know. Period.

1

Pretty much. Otherwise we will argue about the 2 terms forever and every month some new person comes along to explain the difference, then they get angry if you don't see it their way.

I don't get angry, I smirk at the bad thinking. 🙂

0

We do this a lot here, huh?

No. Some agnostic individuals are theists. They don't really know, but still believe, still go to church, still call themselves Christian/Muslim/Satanist/Pastafarian. In fact, I'd argue the majority of believers are agnostic. I can't prove it, but so many people around me are "Christian" without having to go to church, without ever praying, without ever thinking about Jesus or anything else.

I know exactly what you mean. Most "believers" around me are like that, including my own 2 daughters.

That's because they don't think!

0

Atheists make a false claim that only believers have to show proof. I consider myself an ignostic. If you are in Christian,Muslim or Jew I am an atheist, but if you're anything else I don't know. There is no Universal unambiguous definition of what God even is, so therefore it makes sense for me to be agnostic/ignostic. The argument is very similar to is there life on other planets. It's very unscientific to say there's absolutely 100% zero chance of life on other planets because we have not shown proof that there is. When it comes to the universe we do not have the technology to truly explore the cosmos. The lack of knowledge about the cosmos does NOT translate into there is a 100% chance that there is no life out there.

I'm interested in the first part of that post. What is it atheists have the burden of proff for?

I hope I don't have to show you proof of not believing in gods. You will have to simply believe me and take me at my word, or you could follow me around a lot and hope to secretly catch me praying.

1

If you were to look up the definition of agnostic in a dictionary, that would probably clear up your confusion on the matter.

Randy

Dictionaries aren't authorities on definitions. They give us the most common usages. The piont Matt was making is that if one claims to not "know" there is a god, it seems that person cannot logically believe in one either. That's Atheism, is it not?

@Sdusmith Your reply makes no sense. What constitutes something as being an authority for anything, in your world? Are YOU an authority?
If I look up the definitions of the words Contract and Fraud in a law dictionary, and demand that they be recognized, it is a given that those definitions WILL be adhered to in the legal system/Matrix. How can they not be recognized? If they are not recognized, then there is complete proof that the legal system/Matrix is nothing but a scam which is run only on whims and caprice. I can point to them and compare them to the real world, and say, "Well it says right here beginning on page 455 of Black's Law Dictionary what constitutes fraud, are you going to abide by that, or do you have a higher authority that you're going to go by?". There is no higher authority, so BLD will have to be deferred to.
I can believe something, but that does not mean that I know it for sure. I do not just believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4, I know it for a fact, and can prove it to be true 100% of the time! I may believe or not believe that my wife is going to be bringing home ice cream with our groceries, but until I look in the shopping bags, I won't know it for sure, right?
Atheism is a word that means one does not believe gods actually exist. An Atheist is someone who claims that gods do not exist.

Who's randy? Where i come from randy means horny, which seems somewhat unrelated to your text

1

Yes.

I prefer to say, atheists are people who don't believe in ANY God ( but if you have evidence, we'll look at it), while agnostics don't believe in any God as well, EXCEPT for the God they grew up with, and possibly fear, and about which they are agnostic and say "I don't know."

4

As a former agnostic turned atheist, that's pretty accurate. But most agnostics wouldn't agree, just as I wouldn't have agreed back when I was an agnostic.

1

Doesn’t really matter. If anyone cares about that sort of banality they probably need to take up golf or rally driving or anything that gets them out of the house.

Would a study of my belly button be as interesting?

@HankSherman if you have a charismatic belly button I would say yes!

@Geoffrey51 one of those things I 'll need a second opinion for.....will get back to you.....oh never mind.

0
1

I can't answer because as an atheist it's not that I don't believe in a god, I see no evidence for one so there's nothing to believe in.

Yes, atheism is not a belief statement plucked from the air; it's a position that says, this is where I stand, based on total lack of evidence.

Doesn't that mean you don't believe?

0

In some cases, yes, but not all IMO.

That's interesting. Can you elaborate?

1

sure, why not 🙂

lerlo Level 8 Apr 29, 2019
2

no, i don't agree. what i think is that people spend too much time trying to define words that actually each have more than one meaning in that their meanings are broad. an atheist can be someone who doesn't believe in any gods, or someone who firmly believes there are no gods. both are atheists. some agnostics explain themselves by saying they don't believe in any gods but cannot state that there definitely are none because they don't know; others say they're simply unsure; others are offended when people say agnostics are unsure. there is a RANGE for each and they overlap. i won't oversimplify just so we can have two clearly labeled barrels to toss people into.

g

Well said.

I totally get that and that is all true. But whether you claim to know there is no god or are unsure if there is a god, wouldn't it logically follow that you don't believe there is one? It's semantics, I admit, but still valid I think.

@Sdusmith in that case, how do your two definitions even apply? your questions is ABOUT semantics. i stand by everything i said.

g

@genessa The two definitions are a claim to belief and a claim to knowledge. But it's a meaningless distinction since lack of knowledge necessarily facilitates lack of belief because it's irrational to believe something you can't know.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:338952
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.