Agnostic.com

37 10

Agnostic vs Atheist
Sorry to rake up this seemingly old one up again but there have been so many posts on this that one more won't do much harm.
Until I joined this site it was not a question that bothered me much. I don't believe in god and that's that. However, there are some points that have been brought up on the agnostic side of the debate that I take umbrage with.
1, You cannot know for sure
2, You cannot prove a negative
I deal with both of these with the "Where are the scissors Darling?" argument. We have all been there and it goes,
"They are in the draw"
"No, they are not, I've looked, twice"
The scene will continue till either the 2nd party coincides by looking in the draw or the 1st pulls out the draw and shows them. But both will know 100% that the draw is scissor-less (or not).
There are lots of other cases where a negative can be proven. Litmus paper can prove the absence of acid. Gieger counters radiation and a cheap mains testers' electrical current, to name a few.
Agnostics claim it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. But in practice, even that is provable. We could use x-rays, thermal imaging or even just listen to hear if the cat is alive or dead.
Okay but a diety is different. It has no mass or energy and cannot be subjected to the same tests. To this, I say that there used to be thought that there was a substance called the ether. It was what light was believed to travel in space though before we knew that light had a very tiny amount of mass. After that, the ether was dispensed to the realms of scientific history. No longer needed on voyage as it does not do anything, is not detectable, and if we never thought of it in the first place then we would not be talking about it now. Does that sound familiar? In other words, agnostics argue on behalf of the possibility of an intangible pair of scissors in the draw. I for one would not run with that.
Now there is another reason for this post and it goes to motive. Why leave the door open? Even if it is only a chink? Like a spurned lover, do you cling to a straw? Readers will recall the character in the movie "Dogma". Who when told by the hot chick that he has no chance, badgers her to admit that if the universe were about to end then she would have sex with him. Is that the real reason that agnosticism? That when you die there might be an afterlife after all? Why else would you give it any thought at all?

273kelvin 8 Aug 12
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

37 comments

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

2

Because your mind should be open to any new evidence that may come in.

i don't think so. i forget who said it, but, to paraphrase whoever it was, some people's minds are so open that thoughts enter and exit without stopping anywhere in between. a completely open mind is a mind that has not learned anything. discrimination is not a bad thing in and of itself. it is if you're discriminating against a race of people, or people of a religion, violating their rights, for example. it is a good thing if you discriminate between a nice slice of pie and a big pile of poop. don't eat the latter. i wouldn't call upon an open mind regarding that choice, either.

g

@creative51 Until we know everything we can know nothing for certain.

@genessa Until we know everything we can know nothing for certain. Until then, you are going with the preponderance of evidence and your best guess based on all the evidence at hand..

@dare2dream yep. and it's sufficiently compelling that i am not worried about it, nor looking over my shoulder all the time for that mysterious new evidence.

g

@dare2dream We can say "There are no f*cking scissors in the draw. I have looked".

0

The text that claim a deity can defy the laws of nature and physics should be enough to end the debate if such absurdity existed. Sex is a glandular thing and physical concepts, thought and contemplation of such things could never be compared.

There is a similarity in agnostic and sex, desire. It can only be the desire to have a chance of a big sky somewhere that would want to keep the embers alight.

2

i don't run with scissors either! it's dangerous!

i also don't worry much about the ag vs ath thingie, though i do occasionally explain why i am the latter rather than the former, meaning and hopefully showing no disrespect to the former. i do mean and show disrespect to those who think it's a fight worth attacking the "enemy" over. i don't even attack christians for believing what they do; i attack people who try to legislate, adjudicate or execute their religion into my life or into anyone's life who doesn't want it there. that's different, right? so someone who says "you atheists are so egotistical!" or "you agnostics are so wimpy" might make me a bit snappish but those who make their case without attacking anyone are not offensive to me. why should they be, right?

as for an afterlife, if there is a heaven i don't want to go unless i can control the music and the menu. since that might make it a less heavenly place for others than it would be for me, i just don't see the logistics of it. so much for an afterlife.

g

You beat me to the running with intangible scissors joke!

@vertrauen i'm naughty that way.

g

1

Jay and Bethany

6

At this point in my life, I've had that debate so many times, I have no interest
in having it again.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be debated, just not by me.
There is no credible, verifiable evidence to prove the existence of gods.
Unless and until there is any, I will not be tempted to rethink my position.
I'm really good with not believing in any gods, and being fairly well convinced
that none have ever existed, nor ever will.

Ditto ditto ditto and ditto.

1

I've pointed out that an alibi proves a negative at least to the degree a positive is proven. Demonstrating someone was somewhere else during the time of a crime also demonstrates they did not commit that crime (if we all accept time travel is not possible, yada yada yada).

But then people say, "What about twins?" or "What about mistaken identity?", etc., which are all problems with positive claims also. If those are all problems with proving a negative, they are equally problems in proving a positive...and thus a "problem" in proving anything at all.

You can also prove a negative by demonstrating it is logically contradictory in some way.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot be proven false. That means they are the weakest possible claims, and on a very, very long list of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims. And thus entirely pointless as claims (except to remain on that pointless list until someone figures out how to test them, at which point they are not unfalsifiable anymore anyway).

All these go on the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, society is populated by people that have the presumption of existence, with nothing except faith to back it up.

@273kelvin I find god innocent of existing until the prosecution proves its case.

2

As our knowledge has grown, we've eliminated the concept of ether but there are far more things that we recognize now that we didn't have the ability to before, like radiation. Radiation always existed but we didn't always have the tools to recognize and measure it. Yes, now we can demonstrate the absense of it but we couldn't always.

I'm open to the possibility that more things exist which we don't have the capacity to recognize or measure at present, including perhaps gods. I'm comfortable rejecting the existence of specific gods, like the abrahamic god but feel no need to conclude definitively that there is no such being at all. It's not out of concern over the possibility of an afterlife because since I worship no gods I'm screwed either way. It's more related to the fact that I was so sure before that there was a god and I've recognized how foolish that was. I feel no need to go the reverse direction and say I'm sure there is no god when I really am not.

4

To the general public - if I'm going to state my position at all - I identify as an atheist. It's just simpler, and I'm doing my part thereby to erode the demonization of atheists as baby-eating monsters. 😉 The general public doesn't understand the meaning of the word "agnostic" anyway, and it's very time-consuming to explain. So I stick with "I'm an atheist."

But I'm both. I'm an atheist - I don't believe in any gods - and I'm an agnostic - humans are not in a position to know for absolute certain about the existence or non-existence of gods. The latter position isn't about hedging my bets for the afterlife. As @UpsideDownAgain so aptly said, "since I worship no gods, I'm screwed either way." Rather, it's about intellectual honesty. I was once so sure that the Christian God existed; now I'm equally convinced that it doesn't - but I've wisened up to recognize that nobody can know anything about intangible god things to the degree that I once "knew" the opposite.

How useful is this? Not at all. I'm also agnostic about the existence of green flying unicorns on some other planet. I don't believe in them. It's just about intellectual honesty. I'd also love to be able to bring a few Christians to the recognition that they don't know what they imagine that they know.

1

The idea of a g-d is just ridiculous.

How could he/she not threatened to pull the car off the road if we kids didn't shut the fu-k up and get along?

"I will SHUT this ENTIRE water park day DOWN!"

"Do NOT TRY ME!"

"Give your brother a juice box, Jimmie. He's looking gray around the eyes."

Why did you write g-d and not god. Worried about divine retribution 🙂

@Moravian He is most probably of Jewish descent and is only respecting his culture

Just a habit I picked up fairly young. I do also sometimes go with god.

0

Define a god and its conditions of existence/non-existence and we'll go from there. Most claims of gods or godly beings are so objectively and patently ridiculous that they can be dismissed outright, as they are presented not only without evidence but without substance, i.e. entirely untestable/undectectable.

2

There is no knowing the unknowable non sequitur should make no difference here just enjoy the people and ideas I think that is truly this place and people

bobwjr Level 10 Aug 13, 2019
2

Simple...some people ponder, others simply earn some money to live on and never care...unless somewhere in the past, they got exposed to ‘god’ talk. If their life has been empty, they may think that they have missed out somehow and start a search for god!
On the other hand the people who ‘ponder life,’ draw from what they see, hear and experience and through this evolution they end up without an entity outside themselves! They learn that it is all up to them, their DNA, and some luck! Even as they are in ah of the heavens and the great earth! Nature rules! Just my take...

1

A negative can be proven if the affirmation is falsifiable or if there is no intern consistency in the proposition.
3 different cases here
If it is falsifiable all you need is to perform the experiment.
If it lacks internal consistency, the proposition is proving itself wrong
BUT it it is internally consistent and NON falsifiable then you can't prove or disprove (but also is a meaningless proposition in terms of logical knowledge).

There is a 4th where the experiment is impossible like mathematical formulas that work with all numbers you tested, but there is no prof that will work forever, or the case of the black swam that can always be hidden somewhere you haven't looked yet.

The non falsifiable and the impossibility to complete the test are the cases where a negative can't be proved.
But in the case that there are no positive evidences the logical way is act as if do not exist because you can say an infinitude of swam colors exist, we just haven't met it yet, and for practical purposes this kind of proposition has no meaning.
And THAT is the agnostic position, something that can't be tested and at the same time can be proposed with an infinitude of variations (colors of exotic swams or gods) have no meaning in the objective world and can be ignored or treated as non existent.

I agree with this. It is both true and more useful to call myself an atheist, so I do. I don't understand, though, why gnostic atheists spend such energy arguing with agnostic atheists. It's a waste of both our times. The agnostic position isn't a backdoor to any religion. It's just about a theory of the nature of knowledge.

@vertrauen problem here is that most people that have doubts call themselves agnostics...
Agnostic is not a doubt, it is a strong and firm position that the question is meaningless if no evidence is presented...
IS saying that I do not need to choose or believe in the non existence to act as if does not exist.
A god that does not interact with the reality and give no evidence of itself is for al purposes the same as a non existent god, this is the Agnostic position.
I do not have to evaluate all the propositions of god, the proponent needs to give me an evidence for me even start to consider...

@TheMiddleWay the proble is that you can make an infinite number of non-falsifiable claims of a god-like entity, they all have the same weight if the definition is at least internally consistent, the garage dragon is a perfect example of it.
So is not about deciding it do not exist, it is acting as if it does not, because for logic or you take into account infinite amount of non falsifiable beings or none of them, and most of them do not admit the existence of the other.
In the end it will be arbitrary to choose your favorite imaginary friend and randomly pointing a finger and say that that specific version of one exists.

It is different from string theory (actually string hypothesis to be scientifically correct), we do not have the technology to test it yet, but there are ways to test it, we are developing theoretical knowledge and technology to be able to test it, we already know that the current standard model fails in some places and we will need a new one at some point.

2

I am really rather tired of this somewhat artificial division between the two words. I was always of the opinion that the arguments between the two were similar to dancing on the head of a pin. However, since joining this site I have revised my view of those who are adamantly agnostic, a group I hitherto though of as less certain of their disbelief than those like me who are atheist. I use the word “adamant” deliberately...because I have only discovered these more militant agnostics here on this site. I find their arguments to be uncompelling, as they use the same arguments for their agnosticism as the religious do for their beliefs.

Thank you, Marionville. Which is why I question their motives

@273kelvin I find them tiresome....some I believe are still indecisive on whether they do or don’t believe in god, as they can’t let the idea go completely despite no evidence. The ones who say they are scientists baffle me most,

Adamant agnostic, huh? That's new. Not seen any. But I did take a prolonged break from this site (January 2018 - June 2019), so quite possibly stuff went down while I was away.

For me - both atheist and agnostic, and someone who prefers to call myself an atheist bc it's simpler - the debate can be tiresome, and it's usually initiated, as in this case, by a gnostic atheist, seldom if ever by an "adamant agnostic" (what is that? It sounds like an oxymoron).

I participated in this debate, however, and thought it went rather well, by which I simply mean "civilly." So your comment about adamant or militant agnostics took me by surprise. Are you sure you're not simply talking about tired or frustrated agnostics weary of explaining to gnostic atheists that the two axes address completely different questions?

(I'm mostly kidding. I believe you. I just find the idea of a militant agnostic utterly weird, and I wanted to make sure you weren't talking about any of us on this thread.)

@vertrauen I have been on this site for 14 months and have run into quite a few whom I would consider to be “adamant “, perhaps even aggressive in their agnostic views. There are some here on the site at present whom I would describe as such, but that is from a purely personal viewpoint and others may not agree with me, but feel sure some do.

1

I am perfectly happy to be a staunch atheist who knows that there is no divine authority as alluded to by all sorts of religions.
Religious people are true agnostics because they just believe rather than know.

1

"Why else would you give it any thought at all?"..... My only observation is that it seems to me that you just did that.

1

No, you can't prove a negative and no, you can't know with 100% certainty. The latter claim is easily shown by the possibility that everything might be an illusion, a matrix scenario, brain-in-a vat etc. You can't even know 100% that the draw exists, so how could you say that it is scissor-less. There is always a tiny possibility that something might be wrong.
Now the former claim. In your example with the draw you don't prove a negative when showing it to be empty. You make a positive claim about the inside of the draw. If we could observe the whole universe at once somehow we could prove that something doesn't exist but only observable things that are inside of the universe and prove only in relation to the observation that could be faulty.
The difference between agnostic and atheist is most often only a definitional difference. Agnostics don't hold the believe that a god exists, which in my book is an atheist. 'Agnostic' only means that you can't know it. But some people for whatever reason don't want to call themselves atheist.

Dietl Level 7 Aug 13, 2019
0

The only thing up for debate is what started the universe. But it seems very likely to me one day or species will figure that out too. Thus, I'm atheist.

0

I don't basically disagree with you but I think that the "Where are the scissors Darling?" analogue is not a good one. The real equivalent should be. "There are no scissors in an unknown draw somewhere perhaps on a distant planet." Which is the real meaning of you can not prove a negative, it does not refer to specific cases, but only to generalized negatives, using only logic not evidence.

We do not live in a hypothetical world. We live in a real-world with real causes and effects. If I look in the draw and find no scissors? I can say that no scissors exist in the only draw I can look at. When I look at the world and all its history and find no evidence of a god that was believed to exist. Then I can say that he is not here.
As for the possible existence of scissors in another place that I have no access to. They are of no use to me and it just does not cut it.

@Bobby9 I think he meant analogy - I have the same problem.

@273kelvin, @silverotter11 You may use either, but I used analogue, because it implies a more exact match than analogy.

@273kelvin Yes very true, scissors or gods do not cut it with me at all either. But the draw far off in space is often the last retreat of the theist. Especially when pressed by reasoning to which they have no answer. So that it is that god or scissors that we are usually asked to address.

@OwlInASack That's it.

4

Is there a fairy called Mehitabel living at the bottom of my garden?

Can I PROVE she's not there? No. Can I PROVE she is there? No. I therefore do not believe the case for, or against, the existence of Mehitabel the Fairy is provable - making me a 'Mehitabel Agnostic'.

That said, do I actually believe Mehitabel IS there? No - of course I don't. The whole concept of Mehitabel existing makes no sense. I therefore do not believe in the existence of Mehitabel - therefore making me a 'Mehitabel Atheist'.

Atheism and Agnosticism are descriptions of two DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT perceptions of reality. One about the existence of god himself, and the other about the possibility of proving the matter.

You can be an Atheist without being an Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, and I further believe the matter is provable".

You can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist - "I do not believe the existence of god can be proven, but I believe he exists".

You can be neither Atheist nor Agnostic - "I believe in the existence of god, and I believe that existence is provable".

Or you can be both Atheist and Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, but I believe the matter unprovable."

It's two entirely separate questions:-

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST ONE GOD? Answer 'Yes' and you're a THEIST, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe) and you're not a theist. The word for 'not a theist' is ATHEIST. There is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD IS PROVABLE? Answer 'Yes' and you're a GNOSTIC, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe the matter provable) and you're not a gnostic. The word for 'not a gnostic' is AGNOSTIC. Again, there is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

Personally I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

5

A deity has no mass or energy. How would we know this? I think pixies are living in my shoes. In fact, they are in there even when my feet are in there.

3

Great comments and I have nothing to add that has not already been said. TY for posting and providing an enjoyable morning with coffee read. 🙂

I will say it is more likely just an individual thing. My Dad was raised Catholic, stopped 'believing' at an early age and claim to be atheist. Then decided agnostic was a better way to define things.
Sadly I never really got to sit down and talk with him about all this before he passed as I moved away when I was 20 and well many know how it is when relationships with one or both parents is strained. I think that is my greatest regret, the missed time chatting with a very intelligent human.

4

Yes, negatives can be proven. In fact, ten of the fifteen valid forms of the classical syllogism have negative conclusions. For example, premises “All A are B” and “No B are C” prove the universal negative, “No A are C”; and premises “Some A are not B” and “All C are B” prove the particular negative, “Some A are not C.” Likewise, in propositional logic, the premises “If A then B” and “It is not the case the B” prove the negative proposition, “It is not the case that A.” What holds in each case it that you can’t prove a negative conclusion without having a negative premise. And the same is the case with the scissors example. That is, from “There are stamps [paper clips, etc., etc.] in the drawer in cannot be concluded that “There are no scissors in the drawer” without the negative understanding that “There is no other place in the drawer where the scissors could be.”

0

Possibilianism is something I subscribe to overall. Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in strong atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.
To quote who came up with the term "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I apply this not only to religion but everything. Evidence for/against, hell we think we have little left to prove and discover but a picture of a black hole and scientists making vaccines much more expensive, scientists who got past our fear of resistant bacteria by creating, from horoscopes to stardust theory, this disproves things like healing crystals but explores as a species are learning how to use placebo and better understand the effect. Dieties are extremely improbable and forms of atheism have been around as long as religion. Evolution is prov
I think a lot of agnostic people aren't comfortable with either idea. The more I learn the more 'atheist' I become but also the more full of wonder I become. An issue I have is people stay surface level and stops at the first step of no god.

3

I agree that negative assertions can be proven, but IMO no proof is absolute. If a person is interested in whether or not God exists he should concentrate, not on proof or disproof but on searching. Belief, disbelief and proofs are for people who just want to argue—muddy the water so they don’t have to look at something.

The God concept does not lend itself to proof because we are talking about ultimate reality. Existence at that higher level is beyond our puny little intellects, which are mired in the sensory dreamworld of illusion. The very concept of time is an illusion according to quantum gravity theory, and therefore any question about existence, creation, immortality or selfhood as a body is meaningless.

Besides atheism and agnosticism, someone here has pointed out a third option: ignosticism. Ignostics claim that it is meaningless to argue for or against God because the word can not be defined in a clear and acceptable way.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:388059
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.