Atheism v. Agnosticism

[Haruko]

As I'm convinced a great many people have and/or are, whether or not they're an atheist or an agnostic confuses. What's there to cause confusion? There's the numerous definitions, for a start. The following's the post I submitted at another forum I frequent after a reply by X to my post in the IPF Religion Poll:

I admit a mistake with the definition of "atheism" in my last post. I said "strong atheism" (aka dogmatic) implying that a non-dogmatic atheist is even an atheist at all. I concluded that I am actually an agnostic after reading this post:

• 
  You misunderstand the definitions, as do most. Atheism is one specific belief, agnosticism is not. Agnosticism is therefore polar, with one end being disbelief in deity and the other being belief. Atheism is commonly referred to as "strong atheism," and one of agnosticisms poles is commonly referred to as "weak atheism," but it is not atheism at all. You state that "for me, the possibility of a supernatural being remains," and this makes you agnostic, not atheist.
  

• • -- X; IPF

[...]

However, this does not invalidate the points made in my previous post.

I now understand that agnosticism can be a firm position. I lean strongly towards a naturalistic universe because the scientific theories refute any opinions that attempt to pass along the plausibility of a supernatural universe. If scientific theories come along that make plausible otherwise, my belief will adjust, as per my belief via empiricism.

I would like to point out that I'm very doubtful towards a deity such as that of Christianity, but find more plausible the possibility of a Deistic/Aristotelian-like deity, though I do lean more against a deity, nonetheless. Yes, of course, even being very doubtful, the possibility is still there, but possibility is overrated by some. What Robert Miller said comes to mind:

• "[T]he concept of possibility is not very helpful in historical matters. Endless historical scenarios can be concocted, and virtually all of them are possible, even the weirdest and most fantastic. That's why to say that a certain scenario is possible almost always is to say nothing about it at all.
  
  ...But it's crucial to make the distinction between possibility and probability because very different criteria apply in each case. To be historically possible, something only needs to be imaginable. However, for something to be historically probable means that there is some evidence for it. Not everyone in the historical Jesus discussion seems aware of this distinction, for we often read statements like 'Isn't it possible that Jesus...?' Fill in the blank with any scenario you like, no matter how you like: the answer will always be yes."

Do you agree with what X said, or do you disagree? Why? Am I an agnostic, as I've concluded yesterday, or am I an atheist? Why?

[Civil War Man]

Atheism and agnosticism aren't really beliefs. Atheism is the absense of belief in a deity. Atheists aren't denying God(s), they simply don't acknowledge his/her/their/its existance.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is mostly just avoiding the debate. It's basically just answering "I'm not sure" and walking away. Douglas Adams (in Salmon of Doubt) basically called them fence-sitters who refuse to become atheists...just in case.

[Cthulhuvong]

The way I always saw it was that Agnosticism was kinda a fence position between atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the belief that there is no proof of a God (or gods), but there is also no way to prove there is not a God (or gods). This was my point of view until recently. I found it too dificult a position to hold, as you take fire from both sides of the discussion and are caught in the middle of any disscusions.

Basic Atheism (which I see as just the belief that there is no God or gods), seemed an easier position to hold while still in my line of thought. Someone I know from another forum uses more of a strong Atheism, which he calls "Anti-theism" due to the belief of there being no gods and the idea that he should help people stop believing in religion.

[Superboy]

The way I've always thought of it is that Athieism isn't saying "There are definitely no gods", but instead saying "There is no reason to believe a god exists."

[Lusankya]

Don't forget apathism, where it's not so much that you don't believe in god/s, but you don't care whether they exist or not, and thus by default don't believe they exist because it's easier that way.

And even if you did believe in a god, you couldn't be arsed worshipping them anyway.

[Lord Zentei]

Atheism = lack of theism, or beleif in god.

"Strong" atheism is the posetive beleif that a god does not exist.

Agnosticism = not knowing, as gnosis means "knowledge".


This X is a moron. His definitions are produced by theists who want to discredit atheism as an idea by showing it to be illogical. In fact it is theism that is illogical, vis-a-vis the principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's razor) that stipulates that one should use the minimum number of unproven premises that describes what we observe. This cuts god out of the picture for to include him/her/it would be irrational. Atheism is simply the refusal to accept any unneccesary postulates, and to not give the idea "god" special exception over the infinite number of wacky things that "might" exist. It is NOT the posetive assertion that there is definitively no god: that is a strawman.

If you don't beleive me, substitute "Santa Claus" and "god" and see if X's claims appear to make as much sense as they did yesterday.

[Chmee]

"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means."

- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial, 1925

[sparrowtm]

X is babbling nonsense per excellence.

Still, I think you're an agnostic as he claims. Or an almost-atheist. Or a not-so-much-believer. Or a well-maybe-hell-I-dunno.

[Dakarne]

I'm Agnostic, I've no definitive proof to the nonexistance of gods, or the actual existance of them.

It's just the way I am, I don't make a definitive decision without groundbreaking proof (The Bible and Evolution theories don't count, a God could have just toppled the first domino, so to speak)

[sparrowtm]

It's just the way I am, I don't make a definitive decision without groundbreaking proof (The Bible and Evolution theories don't count, a God could have just toppled the first domino, so to speak)

So what would be groundbreaking proof for something that does not interact with the universe in any observable manner? How would you disprove the same entity? What you wrote means: "I am going to stay undecided for the rest of my life."

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Atheism is derived by adding the "A-" prefix to the word "theism"

Theism is defined thusly: "Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe." or simply "the doctrine or belief in the existence of a god or gods." (Definitions taken from Wikipedia and Princeton's WordNet respectively.)

Adding the "a-" prefix to a word negates it. For example, atypical means "not typical." Thus, atheism is, very simply, no belief in any manner of gods. It is an enormous boilerplate which covers every set of philosophies which do not advocate a belief in gods.

***

As with atheism, the word Agnostic is derived by adding the "A-" prefix to the word "Gnostic".

A Gnostic is defined generically as: "possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" (Again from Princeton's WordNet)

Thusly, an agnostic is simply a person who has no knowledge of spiritual things. The agnostic does not make a positive pronouncement about the existence or non-existence of gods because they simply do not know.

***

For example, I would be considered a strong obligate atheist. Insofar as, from my viewpoint, the universe is self-contained and internally self-consistent. It is governed by natural principles which can be observed via empirical observation and whose nature and behavior can be described in theories and modeled using mathematics. In this view, a supernatural god would violate the self-contained nature of the universe and destroy its consistency (since a supernatural god would have to exist outside the natural universe and could influence it in a way that would violate its self-consistency.) Thus, I am obligated to be an atheist (hence the 'obligate' in front of 'atheist,' like cats are called 'obligate carnivores' since they're absolutely incapable of surviving on anything but meat and animal proteins.) I am a strong atheist in this regard, because I actively reject the concept of a god as being irrational, superstitious folly.

[Dakarne]

So what would be groundbreaking proof for something that does not interact with the universe in any observable manner? How would you disprove the same entity? What you wrote means: "I am going to stay undecided for the rest of my life."

To be quite honest... I don't really care about having religious beliefs, I suffer from Apathy. However the best philosophical discussions (I use the term "discussion" loosely) come from religion though.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Technically I'm an Agnostic thiest, in that case. I don't believe there's enough evidence either way to positively affirm or deny His existence, but I believe He does.

[Chris OFarrell]

I always defined Agnostic as someone who had no evidence of any kind of higher being, thus clearly does not belive in one. But would be willing to redefine their position if hardcore proof did exist.

Where as atheists are catagoricaly against any possible beleif in a deity of any kind, period, regardless of anything. Which is why I always defined myself as an agnostic. As I have absoloutly no beleif in any kind of higher power, but am willing to let my assumptions be challanged should sufficent evidence ever present itself (not bloody likely).

Of course this is defined as by me.

[Alyeska]

Your definition of Agnostic is close to that of a weak atheist.

Agnostics are those who say you can't know if a God does or doesn't exist. An Atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in god. A strong atheist says the evidence doesn't support the existance of a god (some are willing to become theists if sufficent information is presented). A weak atheist is one who simply doesn't believe in God.

[Rye]

I had this debate earlier today.I will post my definitions, which I have found to be more appropriate to the concepts than many vernacular definitions, and even dictionary definitions to some extent.

Atheism - a term that covers anyone that has the capacity for belief in gods, but doesn't accept a single one. Anyone that doesn't believe in any gods but leaves the question open i still an atheist. How many gods do they believe in? None. Hence they are godless. Atheists.

An atheist can be firm in the belief that there are no gods, an atheist could've just never been given the concept, and lived on a desert island, and thus does not believe. An atheist could be open to believing in any shown to exist, and otherwise rejects the concepts and does not believe. The thing that unites all these people is their lack of gods, which is how atheism is defined. It is defined in a reactionary manner to theism. Anyone absent of theistic beliefs is an atheist.

Agnosticism - gnostos refers to knowledge, not a position of belief. Huxley, I believe first coined the term to refer to anyone that believes that several claims, especially theological ones are fundamentally unknowable whether they are true or not.

However, in the vernacular, it is often used to refer to people that don't know whether there is a god or not, and refuse to commit to a conclusion.

Agnostics, in my view, can be theistic or not, they can believe in a god on faith and not know it exists. Most theists will admit this when asked. Likewise, one can be atheistic, in that they don't believe in any gods, but are open to believing in any shown to exist. These agnostics are atheists, and are (justifiably) unwilling to take the leap of faith. Most people I would class as agnostics; if I asked them if they know god exists or not, they will say no, they have just made logical or faith based judgments.

Technically I'm an Agnostic thiest, in that case. I don't believe there's enough evidence either way to positively affirm or deny His existence, but I believe He does.

Yay! Something I said in a debate stuck in someone's mind!

[Surlethe]

Agnostics, in my view, can be theistic or not, they can believe in a god on faith and not know it exists. Most theists will admit this when asked. Likewise, one can be atheistic, in that they don't believe in any gods, but are open to believing in any shown to exist. These agnostics are atheists, and are (justifiably) unwilling to take the leap of faith. Most people I would class as agnostics; if I asked them if they know god exists or not, they will say no, they have just made logical or faith based judgments.

Sweet! I thought I had the definition right when I proclaimed myself an agnostic Catholic, but people didn't believe me; now, I'm even more sure.

Thanks to everybody in the thread who has clarified the definition of "agnostic".

[Joe]

Agnostics basically use the same reasoning as atheists; they look at the lack of evidence and realize that the existence of God cannot be proven. They just won't go so far as to actually say that God does not exist, which is the logical conclusion.

[wolveraptor]

I thought agnosticism, used colloquially, meant that a person hadn't decided whether or not he/she would believe in God/gods. Often, though, people in this position are in actuality apathetic and simply trying to be non-confrontational.

[Durandal]

Atheists see the lack of evidence for the existence of God and conclude that he doesn't exist. Just like any reasonable person would note the lack of evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny and conclude that he doesn't exist.

Agnostics see the lack of evidence for the existence of God and then conclude that, since there's no evidence saying he doesn't exist, that either side could be right, so they will straddle the fence until definitive evidence comes along to prove or disprove the existence of God.

So basically, agnostics are atheists who are unfamiliar with the burden of proof. It's sort of a politically correct atheism. People think "agnostic" and think "Oh well at least he's open to the idea of God." Atheists on the other hand, are like, so unspiritual and demand evidence. (You can insert the usual rantings about how hollow and empty an atheist's life must be right about here.)

In reality, if definitive evidence of God's existence was provided, both agnostics and atheists would consider it. But atheists don't accept the lack of negative evidence for the claim as validation of the viewpoint. Agnostics do, which is stupid.

[Zero]

You're wrong on one thing.. there is evidence of the easter bunny. That fucker gave me candy. When I was 3, I believed in him, but sure as hell not God.

Same way with Santa... who the fuck ever met God at the mall?

[SyntaxVorlon]

My housemate made an interesting point, that Atheism contains a religious belief, but it isn't a religion because it doesn't have any practices based on that belief.

[SyntaxVorlon]

My housemate made an interesting point, that Atheism contains a religious belief, but it isn't a religion because it doesn't have any practices based on that belief.

But then is lack of belief logically congruent with the belief of nonexistence of something. I'll have to discuss this with him.

I would certainly define my self as having no beliefs about the existence of deities, as there is no evidence for such things to exist.

[Durandal]

My housemate made an interesting point, that Atheism contains a religious belief, but it isn't a religion because it doesn't have any practices based on that belief.

Atheism imples a belief regarding religion, but it is not a "religious" or faith-based belief. If atheism is a religious belief, then "bald" is a hair color.

[Surlethe]

If atheism is a religious belief, then "bald" is a hair color.

FUQ