Agnostics vs. Atheists?

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 02:49pm

The online debate seems to be usually confined to Non-believers vs. Believers, but an interesting letter in response to WIRED Magazine's November issue on "New Atheism" (which was demolished in a thread) makes it seem that there's a divide between agnostics and atheists as well.

Luis Tejerina wrote:You wrongly portray agnostics as weak or "polite" atheists and imply that atheism is the belief more closely associated with science. You are wrong on the first point because agnostics are as distant from atheists as from any belief that claims knowledge of the "truth," be it the existence or nonexistence of a deity. Moreover, since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a deity, atheists are no more (or less) scientific than believers. Science should be orthogonal with religion, which is why agnosticism is actually the only belief that is consistent with it.

Thoughts on this? I thought atheists usually thought of agnostics as fence-sitting waverers, but this guy posts some strong words. Is there a split between the two groups online? The debates wouldn't really last long, though, I'd wager. There's more here, but it's hidden amongst letters from people of other leanings.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-12-25 02:53pm

I have noticed once or twice on this forum people having unusually strong words for agnostics. Though this may have been merely because the agnostics in question were trying to use logic to defend their position.

HSRTG · Post by **HSRTG** » 2006-12-25 03:14pm

Moreover, since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a deity, atheists are no more (or less) scientific than believers.

Golden Mean fallacy. And that's why there were unusually strong words.

Isana Kadeb · Post by **Isana Kadeb** » 2006-12-25 04:57pm

HSRTG wrote:
Moreover, since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a deity, atheists are no more (or less) scientific than believers.
Golden Mean fallacy. And that's why there were unusually strong words.

What the hell are you talking about? How is that a Golden Mean fallacy?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2006-12-25 05:04pm

I generally label myself as an agnostic atheist

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-12-25 05:29pm

Dumbass agnostics stereotyping atheists like they always fucking do. How many gods do these agnostics believe in? Oh, is it zero? Well shit, I guess they're godless then, uh-oh, that means they're atheists!

Their main beef is that anything unfalsifiable cannot be concluded to be pretended or in any way not real and be definately correct, but such assertions are vapid nonsense. Why the hell can I not say "God isn't real" or "there aren't intangible rugby players fucking my ass continually" and yet they feel compelled to say "nobody can prove God doesn't exist"? Have they examined all strong atheistic arguments? Uh, no, they've not, so they're huge fuckoff hypocrites too.

They just strawman the shit out of atheism and say that instead of mere unbelief, it is a declaration that they have the knowledge that God doesn't exist. Now, strong atheists have tentatively concluded that gods are made up because, well, they really really look like they are. This doesn't prevent them from admitting they may be wrong and it's impossible to know unfalsifiable things are untrue with absolute certainty. Of course, falsification can't be known to be true with absolute certainty either, but that's because absolute certainty is a retarded requirement to make conclusions.

I mean, for fuck's sake, people that don't believe in a magical invisible man that watches everything and listens to everyone's thoughts ARE NO MORE scientific than people that DO believe in that bullshit? Fuck you, agnostics, you goddamn epistemologico-pussies! I hate them. Strawmanning bitches. Most of them don't realise that not believing in any gods makes you atheistic, by definition.

I like asking these agnostics, when they're acting like they're all virtuous because they cannot conclude something that is obviously imaginary as imaginary, they are somehow more logical and scientific than me, "oh really? How many gods do you believe in then?" They usually get flustered, because they don't believe in any gods and yet claim they're not atheists because of their popular strawman.

I mean fuck, even Huxley admitted there'd be no justification for not classifying him as an atheist, the goddamned agnostopussies could do the same.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 05:30pm

Some other responses from agnostics:

Dylan Tweney wrote:Richard Dawkins would do well to remember Thomas Kuhn: All scientific knowledge is provisional. I agree with him that the scientific method is the right way to pursue knowledge, but those who take this path should do so with a greater degree of humility than Dawkins exhibits.

The real problem with religion is not its belief in God, it's the conviction that one's beliefs are actually in touch with the ultimate nature of reality. In other words, it's not theism that we should object to, it's gnosticism.

That's why I'm not a strong atheist, but I am a strong agnostic--or, more accurately, I'm an anti-gnostic. To proclaim scientific knowledge as ultimate truth is to make the same, offensive, gnostic error that religious fundamentalists do. Dawkins should know better.

Scott Wilson wrote:I read with interest the article entitled “The Church of the Non-Believing” by Gary Wolf. I was immediately struck by two thoughts: the first is that there is no direct relationship between atheism and science. Atheism is a philosophy, yet ironically for those featured in the article who proselytize this belief, it is something more akin to a religious faith. The second is that there is a general misunderstanding of what science is and what a scientist does. True scientists are iconoclasts, akin to agnostics. They first question the established facts and paradigms that have been devised to explain the natural world, they create alternative explanations, and then they conduct experiments to prove or disprove their hypotheses. This is a limitless endeavor since all scientific “truths” are provisional and subject to further inquiry, further experimentation, and further revision. A scientific fact is vetted and validated if a phenomenon is observable, measurable, and repeatable to the inquiring scientist and anyone who wishes to repeat the experiment. Science is therefore designed to answer “how” questions: how the earth revolves around the sun and how viruses replicate. Yet, within this epistemology there is no place for asking “why” questions: why is the universe expanding and why do we live in an imperfect world filled with viruses? Science is limited by its own design.

Sam Musleh wrote:Thanks for your great story on atheism. Although it was written with clear admiration of the less tolerant, more outspoken atheists interviewed, I found it refreshing that Gary Wolf readily admits that people's general response toward those admitting to be atheist is that of annoyance. Although I am completely on board with their guile toward religion in all its forms, I have to admit that when somebody tells me they're an atheist, I tend to be repelled by them as much as I would an in-your-face Christian or Muslim. After all, Atheism is just another faith and faith crams dogma into the gaps that reason cannot fill. Faith replaces real knowledge, satisfies the inquiring mind... embraces and even reveres ignorance.

Prove to me that there is NO God! Then again, prove to me that there IS a God! In the meantime, anything you say that implies a bias one way or another is faith-based and therefore complete bullshit and, by that very nature, is just another religion. The New Atheists insist that agnostics should 'come out of the closet' as atheists... well that's the same thing that the Christians are telling us only they thing we're on THEIR side. Same peer pressure, same type of idiot delivering the message.

There's a rather long one here that brings up String Theory as another example of something that is believed in science but is unverifiable thus far.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-25 05:32pm

Those are some pretty funny quotes, there. Are they people we should give a shit about, or just agnostics trying to justify their 'hmmm maybe' attitude?

Remember, they think 'atheism is just another faith'.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-12-25 05:34pm

Isana Kadeb wrote:
HSRTG wrote:
Moreover, since we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a deity, atheists are no more (or less) scientific than believers.
Golden Mean fallacy. And that's why there were unusually strong words.
What the hell are you talking about? How is that a Golden Mean fallacy?

Because it assigns equal values to both the "existence" and "non-existence" positions regarding the state of the Invisible Cloud-Being. But from a strict scientific viewpoint, since no evidence for the existence of the Invisible Cloud-Being can be presented, since no measures or observations can be taken, the default assumption must be that it does not exist.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-12-25 05:35pm

Oh, it's a faith to conclude, pending evidence to the contrary, that magical men that make universes and star in bibles are made up? Because there's an absence of evidence and such knowledge is impossible to know without being omniscient or something? Well, that must mean the agnostics are able to show how they know it to be unknowable, and how they've read every single strongly atheistic argument. Oh wait, they've not and yet they've made a conclusion without total knowledge and chastised atheists for supposedly doing the exact same thing?

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 05:36pm

Stark wrote:Those are some pretty funny quotes, there. Are they people we should give a shit about, or just agnostics trying to justify their 'hmmm maybe' attitude?

Remember, they think 'atheism is just another faith'.

It's just to bring insight into what agnostics think of atheism.

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-12-25 05:39pm

Stark wrote:Remember, they think 'atheism is just another faith'.

Well, if the point is that they are convinced they can never know for sure, and religions and atheists both think they do know for sure, then in a way atheism is having faith, because it is being absolutely sure about something. It's not a faith in the strictest sense, no, but I think the point still makes sense.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-25 05:42pm

Zaia wrote:Well, if the point is that they are convinced they can never know for sure, and religions and atheists both think they do know for sure, then in a way atheism is having faith, because it is being absolutely sure about something. It's not a faith in the strictest sense, no, but I think the point still makes sense.

No, it's logical. I wouldn't have a 'crisis of faith' to change this if evidence emerged: logically, if there's evidence of god, god exists, I'm down with that. There's no dogma, no rigidity beyond what flows from the evidence. Unless agnostics are seriously so spineless they think you should refuse to deny the existence of ANYTHING, under any circumstances?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-25 05:50pm

GHETTO - wait, in this article are agnostics trying to claim the idea of uncertainty? I'm an atheist, but I still investigate things - I don't claim ultimate knowledge. It sounds like they're trying to say that since science is invesigatory and experimental, that it's okay to have a 'hmmm, dunno' belief about everything.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 05:53pm

I think they're actually all atheists who think they're agnostics because:

1. They don't really know what atheism is;

2. They dislike the zeal of Dawkins and other "New Atheists" and want to claim their own definition so they would be different.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-25 05:55pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:I think they're actually all atheists who think they're agnostics because:

Do you mean the article or the quotes?

Battlehymn Republic wrote:1. They don't really know what atheism is;

Clearly.

Battlehymn Republic wrote:2. They dislike the zeal of Dawkins and other "New Atheists" and want to claim their own definition so they would be different.

I haven't read any Dawkins, so what's this 'New Atheism' and why would people get upset about it?

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 05:59pm

I was referring to the quotes, which are letters written in response to the article.

The article itself talks of "New Atheism", which is pretty much atheism except with Dawkins and others speaking up more to the mainstream about their (lack of) faith.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-12-25 06:00pm

So... 'New Atheism' is just talking about your atheism? Treating it as a worldview to be shared instead of a dirty secret?

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-12-25 06:22pm

I haven't read it all, but other than explaining atheism, it also relates to advocating it (detractors would call it evangelizing it). Also, it's less of a new action than it is a new movement in which famous people openly declare their atheism while talking about the nefariousness of religion. So it's new in the sense that it's a new movement with new people participating in it.

Anyways, you'd have to read/skim the article for your own.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-25 06:41pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:I haven't read it all, but other than explaining atheism, it also relates to advocating it (detractors would call it evangelizing it). Also, it's less of a new action than it is a new movement in which famous people openly declare their atheism while talking about the nefariousness of religion. So it's new in the sense that it's a new movement with new people participating in it.

Anyways, you'd have to read/skim the article for your own.

So basically they're pissed because people are going around saying the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Sounds about typical.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-12-25 06:49pm

The agnostic concept that you can't be certain of anything is itself self contradictory and a stolen concept fallacy to boot. If you can't be certain of anything then how you certain that you can't be certain of anything. Certainty being the stolen concept.

One could argue that agnosticism is the method and atheism the conclusion, although now that I think about it, I find tha tline of reasoning flawed. What they are trying to say is that you can't know something about something that doesn't exist. However I can know something about various fictional characters even though they clearly don't exist, so why can't I know something about the fictional character called God?

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2006-12-25 08:00pm

I think as with any group of people that is larger than a handful, you're bound to have some idiots in it, same goes for "atheists", in this case the idiots obviosuly being the letter-writers. I think they've been so brainwashed (see the polls about how the low esteem of atheists), that they believe in the propaganda and are trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance...

Is there a split between the two groups online?

Can you specify any group that does not have split? Reminds of this great quote I read today:

If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.
-- Lyndon Baines Johnson

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-12-25 08:31pm

You really need only apply this logic to an actual court trial with a suspected murderer and when the evidence leaves any doubt (and I mean any) that means less than 100% certainty, then you may as well call a mistrial and give it up. It's the same with people who go on about the fossil record being imperfect, as if something has to be 100% fully accounted for and documented to be valid. How many convicted murderers had the prosecution pull out a tape detailing every second of existence the accused spent up to the homicide in order to get a guilty verdict?

Oh yeah, it's zero.

But remember, it's silly to say you don't believe something to exist when you don't have every possible piece of empirical evidence in the multiverse and when logic dictates it's fucking stupid in concept anyway.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-12-25 10:07pm

Modern agnostics typically are most socially acceptable athiests. They say they don't know for sure because they are trying to avoid a confrontation, not because they believe in anything. Further, they don't draw a distinction between "don't believe in any Gods" and "belief in no Gods". The two are distinct, but they take the popular religious idea that athiesm is the latter, not the former.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-12-25 10:21pm

When people ask directly, I say I'm Ignostic, ie the existence or non-existence of god is irrelevant because it has no verifiable consequences.

But when you get down to it, that's just a more confusing (conflict avoiding) way of saying "atheist".