Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I think the 2 are extremely different. It gets confusing to lump agnosticism along with atheism? I'm strictly atheist, don't believe in any deity controlling any part of my life. When I die, I become fertilizer, happily. But I've dated and are friends with agnostics, and they are completely different. To ME, they are no different from a theist in their NEED to shove down the idea of "possibility of a godlike person/thing." I'm not sure if it is for their own peace of mind, but it was no different from a die-hard Christian trying to convert me. So to ME, you either are an atheist or not.
I'll admit that the overlap between agnosticism and atheism can be confusing, and it is rather nuanced. The way I look at it is that the agnostic who is waffling about what in their mind is a 50% possibility of god(s) is very different from most of us, who settle in somewhere below (often far below) 5%. I'd call myself a one percenter in that regard (at best). Yet, because I do not claim absolute knowledge, I am still agnostic, and not even technically so, because I do not claim that gods are falsifiable and therefore I do not claim to KNOW (without knowledge = a-gnostic), I only claim not to have any good and valid reason to believe and I claim that a default of unbelief is the only rational response.
(A)gnosticism is about (lack of) knowledge and (a)theism is about (un)belief.
Maybe what we need is a separate adjective for people who are uncertain of their belief, which is a separate issue from what they think is knowable, even though one influences the other. The "uncertain agnostic" is still buying some of the theist arguments. "Undecided" is a more accurate term, but in most people's (lack of) thinking, that's the same thing as agnostic. I don't know how to solve it, but the main reason I keep flogging the agnosticism / atheism overlap is because (1) it's common and (2) it counters the common theist misconception that all atheists are gnostic / hard atheists who think they "KNOW" there is no god -- when it fact it's an extremely rare point of view among atheists. That is a place most atheists won't go, and yet they are not merely undecided; they have high levels of confidence in the validity of their unbelief.
The other option is to just cave to the misuse of the technical term "agnostic" and consider it synonymous with "undecided" but I feel that this perpetuates all sorts of misconceptions and stereotypes and mischaracterizes atheists as arrogant know-it-alls. Worse than that, it allows the whole question under discussion to be mischaracterized. Atheism is not about rebellion, obstinacy, or bald assertions. Nearly all of us know that theism is not falsifiable, even if that cuts both ways and it's therefore not provable. The question of the estimation of each of us about how LIKELY we think theistic beliefs are to be correct actually has nothing at all to do with the knowledge-position called agnosticism. Somehow we have to separate those concerns and not confuse someone who thinks god(s) "somewhat unlikely" as the definition of an agnostic.
In other words:
(A)theism = (without) gods
(A)gnosticism = (without) claiming knowledge if there are gods
(Un)certain = one's personal estimation (of anyone, theist, atheist, gnostic, or agnostic) of just how (un)likely theistic claims are to be correct.
To me the effort to force atheism to be something that it's not (usually 100% certain there are no gods) cannot be allowed unchallenged.
mordant: I can understand your viewpoint above. But I suppose for MYSELF, and strictly just me, being an atheist is just the non-belief of deities. I'm not uncertain, I'm not looking for proofs, nor do I really question the possibilities of whether it may or may not exist. But since that is my take on what atheism represents, it is strange to hear it lumped with agnosticism. So, for me, anyone that still questions and is looking for proof, is to me, uncertain, and therefore agnostic and not atheistic.
mordant: I can understand your viewpoint above. But I suppose for MYSELF, and strictly just me, being an atheist is just the non-belief of deities. I'm not uncertain, I'm not looking for proofs, nor do I really question the possibilities of whether it may or may not exist. But since that is my take on what atheism represents, it is strange to hear it lumped with agnosticism. So, for me, anyone that still questions and is looking for proof, is to me, uncertain, and therefore agnostic and not atheistic.
I'd say that in the case of some god -ideas, a sorta god -creator or deist -god or a cosmic mind, since we can't disprove it, we have to say 'we don't know'. and not knowing means that we don't believe until we do know.
That is absolutely agnostic atheism.
As for the specific god of the Bible, that we can say on weight of evidence, that god does not exist. I suppose one could call that non -agnostic atheism, aside that one can always point to the remote possibility of such a god existing, even if all the Bible -evidence is worthless at proving that it does.
mordant: I can understand your viewpoint above. But I suppose for MYSELF, and strictly just me, being an atheist is just the non-belief of deities. I'm not uncertain, I'm not looking for proofs, nor do I really question the possibilities of whether it may or may not exist. But since that is my take on what atheism represents, it is strange to hear it lumped with agnosticism. So, for me, anyone that still questions and is looking for proof, is to me, uncertain, and therefore agnostic and not atheistic.
I hear you. I suppose the other option is personified by our own Cruithne, who, while she doesn't claim absolute knowledge, is willing to say "I know there is no god" since there's no functional difference between being 99% sure that statement is true, and 100% sure. She sort of "runs to the roar" and doesn't care if she is misunderstood as claiming to possess knowledge and experience she doesn't actually have.
I'm not entirely opposed to that; it's not like my attempts to be more specific in explaining all this have caused a sea change in theist stereotypes of atheists. I suspect those who think we are arrogant, rebellious, hateful, immoral monsters will just go right on thinking that. And you can always explain the nuances to someone who cares enough to ask about them.
I don't really care what they think of me personally, or of atheism, even -- it isn't the bad rap itself that's most of the problem; it's the way they use the manufactured bad rap to hijack the debate over things that just aren't so. "Haters gonna hate", as they say ... but I don't like to concede an argued point if it's going to result in more disinformation being abroad in the world. The whole "have you been everywhere and seen and understood everything" canard / fake requirement to justify atheism is meant to shut things down and besides, the honest answer to that question is "no". I'm not an atheist because I've completed a thorough search of the universe for god, anymore than a Christian disbelieves in Vishnu on the basis of a similar search. Christians see no evidence for Vishnu, and neither do I. I'm simply unbelieving about one more god than they.
Well, since this is the atheism and agnosticism forum, I thought those were the only two options because they pretty much cover those of us who aren't religious.
Your poll also did not offer a "BOTH" option either. Any many people do consider themselves to be both. Depending on the definition of "Agnostic" used, it is quite possible to be an Agnostic Atheist. I have also met people who consider themselves Agnostic Theist.
However I think the concerns of those who wanted a "Neither" option was not because they are deist or theist. But because there is a large subject of us.... myself included.... who simply do not use or identify with the term "atheist" or "Agnostic".
Sam Harris did an hour long talk on this which might interest you and says more than I could by typing here.
For me and many others "Atheist" is a term that other people identify us by, not a term we identify ourselves by. Many of us think it is a ridiculous and useless word that does little more than allow theists to single us out in an "Us against them" fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apathizer
I mean if someone isn't atheist of agnostic, then they it would seem to follow logically that they have at least some manner of religious belief, wouldn't it?
Again, as I hope I juse explained, NO is the answer here. There are people who have no manner of religious or even deistic belief who simply reject the terms atheist and agnostic entirely.
I'm a life long atheist, it is only in the last decade or so that I have become quite anti-religious as I began to recognize the true danger that religion poses to freedoms, and ultimately to the future of civilization.
I voted atheist as that is the self-description I would use in a casual conversation, but technically agnostic atheist is the more correct, complete description.
Functionally I work as a gnostic atheist, as any god that I have heard described is unsupported by any sort of evidence. For these gods I feel confident in asserting with a very high degree of confidence, tantamount to knowledge, that they do not exist.
I am agnostic as to a god-thing existing at all. I suppose it is possible, but any such god-thing is so remote and evidently uncaring that I might as well conduct my life as if the god thing did not exist.
Yes, that's very well said. We can feel quite confident that gods of the anthropogenic variety almost certainly (not completely confident, but to a "high degree" as you put it) do not exist. The problem with god concepts is they are all highly ambiguous and nearly impossible to qualify. As such, it's almost impossible to even understand what exactly the theist would have us believe in.
However, back to my original point. There is no middle ground between theism and atheism. You either believe in a god or you do not. Thus, you are either a theist or you are not. If you are not, you are by definition an atheist, which literally means not-theist. This canard presented that "agnosticism" is somehow a middle ground position is plainly not true. You can certainly be agnostic when it comes to god claims, but you still must fall on one of the only two sides of belief. It's a true dichotomy.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 02-24-2014 at 11:27 PM..
Again, as I hope I juse explained, NO is the answer here. There are people who have no manner of religious or even deistic belief who simply reject the terms atheist and agnostic entirely.
I have no problem with the labels people want applied to themselves. It's perfectly fine if they wish to reject these labels altogether. Even so, there is only one of two sides to the question of whether you believe in a god. A person (or any objective entity for that matter) must fall on one of the two sides. When broached with the question, "do you believe in a god?" it's perfectly fine just to say "I do not believe in a god". The word "atheist" is just a shortcut to the later and a theist is a person who would answer in the affirmative.
Edit: to expand a little more on this. Only things capable of "belief" can be theists. Anything not capable of belief is by definition and necessity not a theist (atheist) and anything capable of belief but does not believe is the same.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 02-24-2014 at 11:22 PM..
I'm a life long atheist, it is only in the last decade or so that I have become quite anti-religious as I began to recognize the true danger that religion poses to freedoms, and ultimately to the future of civilization.
From the well of god belief hath sprung all sorts of crazy and dangerous nonsense (religion). God belief tends to go hand and hand with a lack of critical thought, and that, probably more than anything else is the biggest danger to our species and the future of this civilization. However, I'm not quite sure how civilized our species actually is, nor how worthy it is of survival.
I certainly feel that, since the immediate fears about nuclear destruction have receded somewhat, the major fear is about the human race being unable to survive on a planet ruined by mismanagement.
This urgent need to ensure that we don't ruin it is not helped by this sort of self -serving religious idea that we were created to use the world and its creatures however we like, that interference in the ongoing acting in a natural slash, burn and breed is somehow an insult to God and that any problems can be left to God to sort out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
