Agnosticism vs. Atheism

There was a time, right about the time I became aware of the fact that I no longer believed in god, when I felt that agnostics where doing exactly that, sitting on the fence. Not believing in god but not quite willing to admit it. For a while I considered agnostics cowardly.Since then I have become far more familiar with what agnostics and atheist, in general, believe and from where I stand the only real differance is in what they call themselves. That and agnostics seem to create a seperate mental category for things that are ill-defined, which is why (I would guess) you are 'atheistic' with regard to Santa, but agnostic with regards to god. Atheists have only two basic categories, that which we have evendence for and that which we don't. For all intents and purposes, everything in the latter category probably doesn't exist.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Because, as a general rule of thumb, logical people don't go around being agnostic on all entities that they don't know can't exist.I mean, if you're going to be agnostic about God, then you have to be agnostic about every other imaginable, untestable entity.That's one hell of a headache, to me, so it's much more sane to disbelieve in everything for which there is no evidence - with the caveat that if new evidence comes to light, I'll change my mind. Well, clearly I'm an agnostic atheist, just like you. I'm just a little more accurate with the terms, is all. You're making an unreasonable demand, though. You're asking for evidence of non-existence, which can't exist. Basically you're putting an unreasonable demand on the atheist - a demand that I suspect you wouldn't make if we weren't talking about God. Yes. Hence, atheism: the position that, as far as can be known, there is no evidence that supports the existence of God.

Crashfrog, So you know God can't exist? Please tell me how you came to this logically unequivocal conclusion? You're beginning to sound like a creationist! That is not logical, captain. How can new evidence come to light for something you have agreed is unknowable? WE appear to agree that there is no evidence that would falsify God, so why adopt a position where God has been falsified when he hasn't?It can't be sane to reject the notion of Gods before you have evidence to do so, surely? It is by definition more sane to ignore the question of the existence of God/s until evidence comes to light. If we are associating logic & sanity, that is. I'm sorry, Crash, but you are sounding like an out and out rejecter of the notion of God, rather than one who is agnostic on the subject. Why else would you tell me I have to make a choice?You can't assume a position that God definately doesn't exist, & still claim agnosticism. No, I am making a logically required demand to someone who rejects God/s out of hand. Provide evidence for your assertion. Making a claim of non existence based upon no evidence is logically flawed; argument from ignorance. I'm not going to get into arguing about definitions, there are two positions that are under scrutiny; the absolute rejection of the notion of Gods; & the notion that such rejection is tentative, based upon lack of evidence. I put it to you that the absolutist position isn't evidentially supported, & is logically flawed. You see my confusion? One the one hand you are arguing with me telling me you agree with me, on the other I am too afraid to make a choice! You can only have one position on this, not both (well, three, if you are a theist).This is my position; there is no evidence of the existence or non-existence of Gods, therefore the entire notion is an irrelevant non-sequitur, there is no decision to be made, in the same way I don't have to say yay or nay to the potential existence of a chocolate asteroid orbiting Betelgeuse.Why is this such a headache for you?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

compmage,We seem to be in agreement.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge no reputable source uses your definition - it appears to be a private definition used by a very few people, almost none of them atheists. On the other hand I do have a source which includes agnosticism under atheism (The Penguin Dictionary of Religions). Other reputable sources recognise that atheism can reasonably be defined to include all positions that do not include a positive belief in the existencce of a God or Gods.As I have stated I beleive that there is no God - and even though it is a tentative opinion, subject to revision that is sufficient to class me as an atheist under any mainstream xdefinition of atheism

PaulK, Fine by me, it is the class of atheist that reject any possibility that my argument is with.And the definition I use is irrelevant, I have defined my terms & been perfectly clear as to exactly what my objection was to.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003]

But you can't have evidence of non-existence. Therefore you have to reject the existence of anything you're going to reject before you have evidence of non-existence.I have to know, Mark - are you equally agnostic about the existence of monkeys flying out of my nether regions? If not, why not? If so, doesn't that seem a little ridiculous? Good thing for me that I haven't assumed such a position. The position I've repeatedly taken and argued is that, within the limits of what is knowable, I know that there is no God. Then, honestly, how can non-existence be determined? If absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, what is? Indeed. Good thing nobody here appears to hold that position. That's why I'm saying that there's no difference between the position of agnostics and the position of atheists. We both disbelieve in gods to the same degree. It's just that agnostics appear too embarrassed to admit to being atheists, for whatever reason. Because you take exactly the same position as atheists, but don't call yourself an atheist.What would you think about somebody that voted Democratic, acted Democratic, agreed with Democrats on almost every single issue, but for whatever reason absolutely refused to allow people to characterize them as a Democrat? You would probably think that they were embarrased by the idea of people knowing they were a Democrat, because they felt being a Democrat was something that was not well-regarded in their community. I would accuse such a person of fence-sitting, just as I do agnostics.

Since no atheist takes that position, who exactly are you arguing with?

The problem is that you are using what amounts to a private definition and quarreling with a lot of people - because they call themselves atheists without using (or possibly even knowing of) your definition.Why not at least use one of the more common definitions rather than causing communication problems by using a definition that appears to be concocted only for the purpose of misrepresenting others ? (While I do not know if that WAS the purpose that is certainly how I see it used !)

Crashfrog, I have been perfectly clear as to what my objection was, I have gone to the trouble of defining terms just so that this sort of misunderstanding wouldn't occur. My objection to a certain group of atheists (using your definition, since no one is taking notice of anything I write) is that they reject outright any notion of God based on lack of evidence. I have pointed out that this is logically flawed.Hence: Which is precisely why it is such a stupid position for these people to place themselves in. Bad analogy. I have knowledge of monkeys & their habitat of choice, I also have a working knowledge of your "nethers" (deny it, Big Boy!), I have no knowledge of God, however, with which to come to a likelihood based conclusion. False. This gets more & more like arguing with a creationist. Does this sound familiar - "Because there are no intermediates between fossil taxa X & Y, therefore I KNOW that there aren't?" You, nor they, don't know anything of the kind, they, & you, just lack evidence. The non-existence of God is unknown.I'll state it again, it is logically flawed to make an untentative statement that God doesn't exist. It is similarly impossible to arrive at a conclusion based on likelihood or probability. We have NO positive evidence on which to base such a study, unlike the behaviour of anthropoids as they pertain to your bottom .If you hold that your position is tentative, (which I think you do), then we, at least, are in agreement.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

PaulK, But it isn't, I have made it abundantly clear that it is the 100%, untentaive rejection of God that that is my beef. These agnostic/atheist debates always go down the same route because no one defines their terms, & even when they do, it seems.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Crashfrog, I have friends who take this position, & who define themselves as atheists the way I began this thread.But a quick trip & a skip over to Agosticism/Atheism.... Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-21-2003]

crashfrog It would seem that an impasse has been reached here. God is not properly defined with characteristics that humans as a whole agree upon.Is God impersonal or personal? Is God absolutely powerful or limited to some degree? Is God love or is He anger?As an atheist myself I decided that not only is there no good evidence but there is not even a remotely proper definition. The God of the Bible is so hopelessly human in his actions that I outright reject this book as a source(for defining God) and in many studies of other cultures I have found that most likely all Gods goddesses etc are social instruments put in place to help people in coping with death and our mortality.We are unable a lot of the time to handle the stress of aging and the loss of parents and friends and it would seem that a fair number of people need to hold onto an illusion of an afterlife so that pschologically they can maintain some control over their life.It is not hard to understand that humans feel lost and alone and WILL cling to beliefs and I agree that atheism does not offer any comfort.I eventually came to accept that life is temporary and it does no good to waste the short time we do have trying to feed the need of our egos and that I was not special and necessary.I lost the comfort of beliefs and gained the comfort of clarity.I now take time for my friends and family at the expense of work related tasks because it is more important that my children understand that life is not pusuit of career to establish whatever accumulation of property and intellect you desire but it is enjoying one anothers company and being truthful on points of the facts of life and death. When I die those who knew me can mourn but they cannot claim that they did not know me.
Atheism is not a disbelief in God but a release from the pursuit of folly.Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition thats troublesome. I.A.{Added blank lines between some of the paragraphs, to help readability - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-21-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-22-2003]

These are all very nice arguments from everyone, but at the end of it all I believe mark's definitions (which in my own poor way tried to define in a similar way) are the most coherent.I am going to pick on crashfrog for the singular reason that he makes such a convincing argument. Except he seems to be missing the strength of assertion he is making toward there being no god, and the way in which agnostics actually dismiss the claims of both sides.To start with Crash is correct that any rational being will be agnostic with regards to all possible entities. The belief in any particular entity rising with proper evidence to the level of knowledge.Further, Crash is very right in making this statement... But it is an equivocation of sorts, to expand this very specific statement to be the same as someone saying "there are no Gods." The above statement seems to be something both an agnostic and an atheist would agree on.Only the agnostic differs from the athiest in acknowledging that there are plenty of entities that fall outside the limits of our knowledge, and may always fall outside these limits, and yet be true. Thus saying "I know" cannot be said about entities falling firmly outside that limit.As mark indicates, until there is evidence for the existence of any entity there is no need to discuss it at all. A statement of belief with no argument or evidence is a non-sequitor.One does not need to disbelieve in the entity they are talking about (when no evidence is given). It is simple enough to say there is nothing too discuss. It is unknowable.As those who believe in certain entities offer evidence towards, and reasons to consider them within the realm of knowledge, the agnostic may then pass judgement as to their existence or not.For example when a person says there is a God that created all life and then made a huge flood, the agnostic may then say there is not only no evidence for THAT God, there is credible evidence against it and the statement above comes into play. A particular concept of God has entered the limits of our knowledge and we can say we know that God does not exist.The same goes for those cinammon baboons. Just by making them corporeal entities we have physical experiences of, there emerges not simply a lack of evidence but some body of evidence against their existence.The vague question of "do Gods or a God exist?" is separate and different from the two concrete questions above. The agnostic--- as outlined above--- simply says such entities, until evidence is offered to bring them into the limits of our knowledge, remain by logic unknowable. The agnostic may BELIEVE there are none, but understands it is not knowledge or not something that can even be "knowable."The athiest, unfortunately, uses crash's statement in a much stronger way than the agnostic. When one says "there is no God" and it is not directed at any specific entity, then that is a statement beyond the limits of our knowledge.Now it may be argued that most atheists are merely using a shorthand and really mean the larger statement of "within limits", when they say "there is no God". But then I think it would be more reasonable to say many who view themselves as athiests are really agnostic, than eliminating the term agnostic and saying you get to choose between atheist and a theist.In fact, it think it is overly generous to say there are no such things as people who believe as irrationally in no Gods, as there are those irrationally believing in a God.I have known people, and argued at length with them about whether "no evidence for" counts as "evidence against" all currently unknown entities. They really are out there.I suppose if everyone agrees to scrap the definitions mark uses and go with the ones crash uses, I can accept the fact that I am defined as an atheist. I mean why should I care about what term is used.It just seems that crash's definitions do not cover the true range of belief, and so are limited in their usefulness.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-21-2003]

i would suggest you change this to "within the limits of what is knowable, there is no evidence of a God."you may see it as an added redundancy (the unspoken agnosticism about everything) but that unspoken admittance of not being able to truly know something only applies when assertions are made in science. matters outside the realm of scientific understanding are not inherently covered by the uncertainty blanket. rather, science just doesn't touch subjects like that. that's the point exactly. there IS no such thing as evidence of absence (on an absolute level, i.e. you can't prove a negative), so why make the claim that the lack of evidence of god is in any way, shape or form, evidence for his full absence. even stating this tentatively is incorrect because it regards a matter that (most of the time by the definition of god) can't be known.if you want to claim there is not god (for whatever reason) fine, as long as you realize it's based on the same lack of evidence that theists make their claim on.