Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Paul,Irrelevant, I stated what was atheist & agnostic for the purposes of my post. I wasn't aware I had to make a disclaimer.Mark

Hi Crash, But they don't necessarily believe the same thing.If atheism (& I am now using a more mainstream definition for any future posts) is the absence of belief in God, & agnosticism is the belief that we can't know for sure of the existence of Gods. This basically makes agnostic a subset of atheism, but it doesn't = atheism. Why? Because the so called gnostic atheists deny the existence & possibility of God. So, a better descriptor of me is agnostic. Perhaps atheist agnostic would be a better descriptor, since it defines my genus & species, if you will? Gnostic atheism does take as much faith as believing in God. Not really, but perhaps now we are using yours & PaulK's definition you can see why I take dim view of atheists telling me I'm not an agnostic.What Is the Definition of Weak Atheism?

quote:

---

The truth is that the broad definition of atheism is most accurate. Some atheists go on to deny the existence of some or all gods, but not all do, and by no means is this a necessary step to be considered an atheist. This is fully attested in comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries and it is how atheists in the West have been using the term for a couple hundred years.

​

The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition can be found in the fact that it simply allows us to describe a wider range of positions. For those who insist on the narrow definition, there are three basic positions:

​

Theism: belief in (my) God.

​

Agnosticism: don't know if any gods exist.

​

Atheism: denial of (my) God.

​

Once we introduce the broad definition and recognize that agnosticism is about knowledge rather than belief (a related, but separate issue), we find that there are now four categories available:

​

Agnostic Theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.

​

Gnostic Theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists.

​

Agnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.

​

Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.

---

I confess I was using the former definition which it now seems apparent is used by theists to undermine atheism. I actually prefer it, since it means I don't get lumped together with people who are actually as much opposed to my view as theists, but since it's just definition, & since neither of us are Syamsu, who argues by definition, I'll go with the mainstream.But my actual objection stands, gnostic atheism is faith & not evidence based. Do you think this is a superior view? There is no tentativity allowed in this view. Atheists don't all think the same thing, I would fall into the agnostic atheist category, 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."

The difference between Atheists and Agnostics is simple:

• Atheists are offended if you call them Agnostics.
• Agnsotics are offended if you call them Atheists.

Or that seems to be the modern terminology. Historically the Agnostics were a group of poncy intellectuals who wanted to deny the church, but didn't like being counted as Atheists. So they adopted a position of 'no knowledge of god before death'. Yes, that's a slanted interpretation of events, but basically accurate.I consider Agnosticism (as in the earlier 'no knowledge' position, rather than the 'not sure' position) to be intellectual cowardice; a position that amounts to 'don't know, don't care, won't try'. I'm an Atheist, I believe it is possible to know whether there is or isn't a god. I also think the evidence from the world around us renders the existence of god very, very unlikely but not yet totally disproven.Atheism is not a faith position. My belief in a real world that corresponds to my sense is a faith position, and I deduce Atheism from the world that those senses reveal to me. I will differ from many of those who have posted so far in that I consider that I do know there is no Purple Baboon tearing at my face right now.

In post 19 you claimed that you were using the standard definitions and that atheism was only "belief".In post 21 you claimed that you were using your non-standard definition where atheism is "absolute certainty".Post 19:

quote:

---

Of course, it depends how you define terms, but I'm using the standard; theist believes in God; atheist believes there is no God; agnsostic refuses to confirm or deny God without evidence. This means that agnosticism isn't watered down, it is logically correct. An atheist advocates as much as a theist.

---

Post 21:

quote:

---

I agree, but atheists by definition deny the existence of God, this is 100% denial, there is no tentativity involved

---

I don't see how you can claim that you clearly stated your position in post 19 since post 21 contradicts it. The definition in post 19 clearly DOES allow tentative belief (and IS *a* - not *the* - standard definition).

I guess I see "I don't know" to be neither definite nor conclusive, but maybe that's just me. No, we'll generally say "there's no evidence that leads us to believe that there is a god." Now, if you don't believe something exists, it means you believe it doesn't exist, because things either exist or they don't. We're not neccisarily saying that our belief is right, just that, in the light of all the data we have right now, a model without god is most likely to be accurate. Not neccisarily. It's a matter of expected evidence vs. actual evidence. We would expect an interventionist god to leave a lot of evidence. We would not expect an extremely squishy proto-living cell to leave much evidence at all - if any.Since the actual evidence for god is way, way less than what we would expect if god existed, it's reasonable - to me, at least - to conclude that god probably doesn't exist. (Again, gods that don't ever intervene could exist without evidence, but who cares about them?) No the issue for atheists is more like "there's the agnostic over there, telling me that something I'm pretty sure I know is actually unknowable. One or the other of us must be wrong, because we can't both be right. How can I know something that he says is unknowable?"Maybe you can't know absolutely whether or not any gods exist. But as far as I'm concerned you can be as sure that god doesn't exist as the sun will rise tomorrow, or that monkeys aren't flying out from between my buttcheeks. Again, that's not 100% sure, but that's far more sure than the "unknowable" cop-out. And again, there's no reason that logic can't also apply to any other thing that doesn't exist. You might as well say it's meaningless to say "there's no elves", or "there's no moogles", or any other mythical thing.Who has the time or inclination to consider so much stuff unknowable, when it's just so much easier to realize that, in all probability, they just don't exist?

Bold mine.Surely in order to know that an entity cannot be known, you would have to actually know that entity? Meaning that you actually do know?I can accept a person saying "I don't know and I don't think it is possible to know because all god-concepts I have encountered have been incomprehensible", or something along those lines. Or is this closer to what you ment and I have misinterpreted your statement?------------------
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

I agree that this is an illogical position. I would, as well. That's why I think we believe the same thing - and why I believe that agnosticism, on it's own, is not really a position to take on the existence of god but rather a fundamental condition of what can be known. We're all agnostics, basically.

quote:

---

I also think the evidence from the world around us renders the existence of god very, very unlikely but not yet totally disproven.

---

That is my position. You call it atheism. I call it agnosticism. It isn't proven, therefore, I don't know-- which is why I find it very irritating when people refer to agnosticism as cowardice.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I can appreciate how that would be irritating. As far as I can see the whole Agnostic-Atheist discussion mostly resolves around a confusion of terms. Your position I consider Atheism, and not intellectual cowardice. And repeat...

quote:

---

Now, if you don't believe something exists, it means you believe it doesn't exist, because things either exist or they don't.

---

There is a third option-- "insufficient evidence."BTW, your sentence "there's no evidence that leads us to believe that there is a god" does not translate to "you don't believe something exists." "No evidence for..." puts the subject in limbo. We can't use it in argument, but neither can we call it "proven to be non-existent."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Actually all you need to know--- to say whether something can be knowable at all--- is the limits of our knowledge, and what characteristics the entity is supposed to have.If I say, "Fnord exists" I would expect everyone to say what the hell is Fnord? If I do not give an answer that sets some sort of definition, then most people would just walk away because that entity is unknowable until I come up with something.For me to say, "well I've never seen this Fnord, therefore it must not exist" is just as meaningless.Why does this change if I use the word "God"? God is Fnord. Maybe the mistake being made is that everyone rushes to accept the many definitions already set out and shot down?God is not like elves and unicorns and purple baboons that smell delicious. The latter examples have some characteristics we can put our finger on. God has been defined in so many different ways by so many different people, it is in reality a filler word like fnord without explanation.There is a basic agreement that any God is a powerful supernatural entity. But what the hell is supernatural? The limits of our knowledge are the natural world. Therefore that statement just added another fnord to the mix... Fnord is a powerful fnordish entity.I can agree with the atheist that I don't need to calculate fnords into any theory I am developing, or change the way I live. But I don't see that as being the same thing as assuming it does not exist. It is certainly different that saying "I KNOW it does not exist." There has yet to be a definition given for me to know what is being discussed. Maybe once a working definition comes along I can start buying into it.And as long as definitions keep an entity clearly in the realm of the unknowable, then it remains unknown. Like stacking on more fnords, or characteristics one admits make it unknowable (such as "he manipulates matter using the laws of physics so it looks natural").That said... I would agree with this statement, although slightly longerwinded."I don't know and I don't think it is possible to know because other than god-concepts which were outright rejectable through evidence, all others have been ill-defined, or defined as "evidentially invisible" for the adhoc purpose of avoiding inspection. The former means they CANNOT be known, the latter leaves me with the impression if there are such things as Gods, they must not want to be known."------------------
holmes

If I just said "I do not know", then that is totally inconclusive. If I say "I do not know because I CAN NOT know, and neither can you", that is pretty definitive.That is why I brought up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is a pretty definite statement of not being able to know. If someone said "I do not know" because they were in a situation that this principle describes, they are not "sitting on a fence" or "being cowardly".I mean do you slap around some physicist and say, "come on, get some backbone and make up your mind"? Since I agree with you on this 100%, I think the problem lies in our definitions about BELIEF and KNOW.To me a BELIEF is an IDEA, hopefully with the backing of some evidence.KNOWLEDGE is a specific category of belief. It is a belief with enough evidence and logical reasoning to allow us to say we "know". While it does not require absolute knowledge (I am not a stickler for having to know that we know), it is much more rigorous than belief.That's why I said I think agnostics can say "I don't believe Gods exist." It is just the more positive claim "I know they don't exist", or forceful "Gods don't exist" that separate the atheist from the agnostic. An agnostic will not go that far. That is correct, but then you just defined your concept of God in a way that enters our limits of knowledge. What about a God that is non-interventionist, just a creator God that croaked or walked away once he saw the mess he made? That is simply not knowable. Neither may be the exact conditions and chemical components that formed the process of abiogenesis. In fact it is likely because of where it sits in time and space (just like the creator god).The only difference is that unlike Gods, we know what chemicals are. There has yet to be any sign of "supernatural" activity. So that makes God less likely to my mind. Much more fictional. But by its definition, I simply cannot know. Neither can those with faith or doubt. See I just don't get how sticking with strict logic is a copout. I am not saying theists are any more correct than any atheist... just to avoid a fight?If anything it seems to be a much greater fight to call yourself agnostic. Both sides mistakenly believe you are on a fence and need to come one way or the other, where both (as far as KNOWLEDGE goes) is impossible. How does anyone spend more time considering something "unknowable" rather than "known not to exist"? I never got this problem either.BUT LET ME SAY THIS... I'd rather switch than fight.The irony that it was atheists which pushed me into the agnostic box, and now are dragging me out is not lost on me. Maybe it's that atheists suddenly decided agnostics don't exist either?Since I seem to have almost the exact reasoning underlying my claim to know about Gods, and you claim to know what the correct definitions are, I will roll with it.I am an atheist, subset agnostic. And I will then continue to argue with atheists, subset gnostic, as to whether they really know God exists, rather than JUST ANY other atheist as to whether I exist.------------------
holmes

Few atheists will say "I know Gods don't exist". As a general rule, atheists would say something to the effect of "The chance of Gods existing is so low that it is not even worth considering."------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

While you may be right that few athiests will say "I know Gods don't exist", there are some who do. I guess I had the unfortunate circumstance of going to a religious affiliated college which meant I was surrounded with the extremes of both sides.I was told I was an agnostic because of my wishywashiness claiming the hardnosed atheists didn't really "know." I accepted THEIR definition at the time and ran with it. After college I used to think most people were agnostics, with theists and atheists representing the extremist fringes.That doesn't make anyone really wrong, just semantically different: atheists are now trying to convince me that I am an atheist, and I am trying to convince them that they are agnostic. Who is really right? No one, just debating which set of definitions are most useful.I guess I'll go with the species, subspecies categorization, which seem based more on statements of belief than statements of knowledge. I can live with it.While I am responding to you, I want to mention something you had said earlier. You mentioned Pascal's wager as something used by agnostics but I didn't think that was correct. The true "fence-sitting" stereotype of the agnostic might use it, but to my mind (definition) they were just Xtian theists looking for something seemingly logical to use in the face of so much evidence against their God.As an agnostic when I first heard that wager, I recognized pretty easily how fallacious it was, and almost certain Pascal was in on the joke."Five to one says the church eats that garbage up without giving it a second thought."
---Pascal's other wager------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-22-2003]

PaulK, Having gone back & read the post, you're right, I should have been clearer.HOWEVER! Whether you accept my original definition of atheist as absolute rejection of God, or the more mainstream gnostic atheist definion which asserts the same, my complaint is levelled at exactly the same people. I am not playing definitional gamesMark