Poll: Only for those who describe themselves as atheists.
TheMiddleWay thinks many or most of us are certain no gods exist. I think that position is the same as claiming we can prove no gods exist, and thus have a burden of proof. I don't think many of us go that far. Vote however you wish.
Gnostic atheist: "I am best described as an "gnostic atheist" who is certain no gods exist, who makes the claim that no gods exist (and I understand a claim requires the shouldering of a burden of proof that would require me to provide evidence for my claim)."
Agnostic atheist: "I am best described as an "agnostic atheist" who doesn't know or can't know if a god exists, but lacks a belief in god generally until good evidence is provided to warrant belief."
1
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
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The only reason all those words exist is because we were all raised in cultures which pushed the idea of god. Therefore it is psychologically difficult to completely walk away from a concept that is so fundamental to our world view. People from countries and cultures that haven't pushed religion are natural born atheists.
Jinx5555555
Level 6
July 15, 2019
1
The two terms address different questions. A-gnostic means without knowledge, or gnosis. A-theism means without belief, or theism.
The word "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog, who defined it as without knowledge, and I think that his definition is a good one,
BTW, Stanford is famous for a very strong bias towards theism and against atheism, so their findings are highly questionable.
ldheinz
Level 7
July 14, 2019
0
Oh, I know. None of that had any traction with my discussions with TheMiddleWay.
@TheMiddleWay is an utter twit. You probably shouldn't waste much time on what he has to say. The man's a mental midget with delusions of granduer.
OpposingOpposum
Level 9
July 14, 2019
1
He's probably trolling me, but I like meta-trolling trolls anyway.
@greyeyed123 well he is that. He was single handedly responsible for my decision to block people on here.
JimG:
Good, I'm not the only one who thinks he's an arrogant douche, then?
@JimG oh no. Can't stand him and he is convinced he is brilliant but he thinks mud slow and can't form a coherent thought to save his life.
JimG:
@OpposingOpposum He has presented more logical fallacies in a single post than anyone I've ever seen though, and he does so with a level of self-assurance that can only be explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You cannot prove a negative. I require no prof to dispute claims that are not backed by anything except imagination and wishful thinking.
The debate about which "type" of athiest one is is pedantic bullshit. It exists only to make amature philosophers feel like they're contributing something to a debate that's been settled long ago.
1of5
Level 8
July 14, 2019
5
I don't believe in lots of things. I don't have to prove there's no Bigfoot, and I don't have to prove Marilyn wasn't carrying JFKs baby, and I don't have to prove my car will start the next time I use it, by starting it now. Im allowed to accept doubt/improbability and still call my beliefs a certainty. Why should atheism be different? I'm not buying that we need complicated concepts to justify a higher burden of proof when it comes to theism.
MarkiusMahamius
Level 7
July 14, 2019
3
You forgot a 3rd choice: The don't give a shit about categories of unbelief.
Spinliesel
Level 9
July 14, 2019
4
That's called apatheism.
You decided that we have to prove a negative why? Do we have to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either?
lerlo
Level 8
July 14, 2019
2
I totally agree.
"Gnostic atheist: "I am best described as an "gnostic atheist" who is certain no gods exist, who makes the claim that no gods exist (and I understand a claim requires the shouldering of a burden of proof that would require me to provide evidence for my claim)."
Why ?. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim not with those refuting it. I have yet to see any evidence for the existence of any gods.
Moravian
Level 8
July 14, 2019
1
It wasn't me, but TheMiddleWay who references the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which says that atheism is best understood in relation to theism, and that theism is the claim that a god exists, so atheism has to be a claim that gods don't exist. I disagree (with both; theism isn't necessarily a claim, but simply a belief).
Finally we ended up arguing how "some", "many", or "most" atheist define atheism. I keep arguing for agnostic atheism, but he keeps projecting some flavor of gnostic atheism onto the word.
We couldn't find any good polls to distinguish the two flavors of atheism among atheists, so I did this. But only five people have voted in a day, so it probably won't help.
@greyeyed123 I would hazard that most of us do not use a standard of Philosophy to decide what things mean.
I simply label myself Atheist. Sometimes Antitheist. Because most religions are pretty toxic to humans.
As of right now I see zero proof for god. You could make anything up from whole cloth and then try to disprove it right?
Those that choose to suspend their disbelief will do so. Those that know it's "Just a story" will believe that view.
There is nothing to measure in a laboratory to prove the existence of god. When there is - than we can debate whether we need to do that.
I totally agree.
Mostly I get annoyed by some who tell me as an atheist I am making a claim, or declaring certainty (or absolute certainty), or that many or most "atheists" hold some kind of burden of proof simply by lacking a belief (because, some say, our position is really a certainty no gods exist, and when we say it is a "lack of belief" we are either lying, irrational, or misguided).
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is using a pre-1972, pre-Anthony Flew definition because that is largely the way the word was used prior to that time (the belief that no gods exist, rather than lacking a belief that any do). My problem with that is that that definition comes mainly from theists themselves, defining a group outside of themselves, and defining it in a way to make it seem untenable or irrational. I get annoyed when outsiders tell me what my position is on anything simply to make their own position look better.
I also have a problem with the notion (as the SEP purports) that "theism" is also a claim, and the claim is that god exists. There are plenty of "agnostic theists" who don't claim to know a god exists, or even claim to prove a god exists. They just believe on faith. What's more, many will say that is the whole point--believing without any evidence. They even sometimes claim that if we were given evidence, that would destroy the entire point of faith. (None of this holds up as a case for believing, of course.) Hitchens makes a similar point when "atheism" is accused of being a religion. The problem, he says, is that "theism" isn't a religion either! It is literally the belief in a god or gods, which may be an element of many religions, but is not a religion itself.
In any case, the SEP is currently aware of the definitional problems, but at this point refuses to change it (claiming the pre-1972 literature all use the word as a claim no gods exist). Theists use this as some kind of triumph. But as I have said before, definitions come from the world, not from the dictionary. They are descriptive, not prescriptive. Any given dictionary is just a current snapshot of how people are using the word, not a commandment about how people should use the word (or think about anything).
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.