Does atheism differ from agnosticism?

[fls]

I don't know that there isn't one.

I don't know that there is.

I don't know.

Since uncertainty is a characteristic of theists and atheists, I still don't see how
making "uncertainty" a separate category provides useful information.

The question becomes, in the face of uncertainty, do we consider the issue as we do most others, do we surrender to special pleading, do we avoid due consideration?

Linda

 

[Rasmus]

The part that you have wrong is the part where you say that there is no place between theism and atheism,

How so?

Do you currently hold the belief that there is a god?

That is a simple yes/no question.

If I asked you if you like broccoli you can answer that quesation with either "yes" or "no". That the anser could be clarified further doesn't matter.

and that there is no agnosticism.

Nobody said there was no agnosticism.

That place is full of people whether you think it should be or not.

I have seen people who refuse to answer the question. That doesn't mean there is a third answer, though.

 

[Btodd]

Apology, you are me, up until six months ago.

You don't want to be labeled, because you don't really feel like a theist, and you don't really feel like an atheist. You're not quite as certain as either of those options. And the label allows people to make too many assumptions about what you believe, so agnosticism gives you the freedom you think you already have, to say, "I don't know".

Only this: saying I don't know means you're an atheist. You don't know, and you don't believe. The "I don't know" part is superfluous, because nobody does.

We're all agnostic, so what's the point in calling yourself one? If you do not believe there's a God, you are an atheist. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between theism and atheism. You either believe, or you do not. The degrees you ascribe to this notion have no bearing on the definitions.

And further calling yourself an agnostic atheist is as pointless as calling yourself a human atheist. It's a given.

 

[Mobyseven]

You're answering a question that isn't being asked.

Nonetheless, I diagnose you as an agnostic weak atheist.

Take two aspirin and some Aquinas and call your doctor in the morning if symptoms persist.

 

[H3LL]

For me there has to be a point where you say no.

Can I fly to Jupiter on a peanut-butter sandwich?

Some bizarre collection of circumstances may make this possible but the odds of it actually being possible are so high that I can confidently say..."I cannot fly to Jupiter on a peanut-butter sandwich".

Gods, IMHO and after examining lots of so-called evidence, falls into the same category. So outrageously improbable that it is not worth considering.

A person presented with the chance of, say.....1:10^1524735 who then states..."Well...It is still possible then!" is verging on the foolish.

I cannot fly to Jupiter on a peanut-butter sandwich and there are no gods.

I wouldn't give gods such good odds though.

Meanwhile, for those that think otherwise - I'm offering shares in my Interplanetary BLT Vacations company, should you wish to purchase. Our slogan - "Chose - IBLTV co. - You have more chance of visiting Venus than going to Heaven".





.

 

[Beth]

We're all agnostic, so what's the point in calling yourself one? If you do not believe there's a God, you are an atheist. Agnosticism is NOT a middle ground between theism and atheism. You either believe, or you do not. The degrees you ascribe to this notion have no bearing on the definitions.

And further calling yourself an agnostic atheist is as pointless as calling yourself a human atheist. It's a given.

So how would you classify an agnostic christian then? or an agnostic jew? The problem with declaring all agnostics to be atheist because they are certain of the existance of god is that it means that many people who are religious now fit under the atheist label. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Btodd]

So how would you classify an agnostic christian then? or an agnostic jew? The problem with declaring all agnostics to be atheist because they are certain of the existance of god is that it means that many people who are religious now fit under the atheist label. That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not saying all agnostics are atheists; that would be false.

I'm saying that since agnosticism says, "I don't know", and by definition, none of us know, then putting the term 'agnostic' before theist or atheist is superfluous.

As I noted, we are all human, too. But we don't call ourselves 'human theists' or 'human atheists'. There's no need to describe what is already obvious.

 

[Darat]

Aren't you then claiming (rather strong) knowledge about God? I.e., that s/he will never reveal her/himself/itself to you?

I don't see how this position can be defended as a principled position fundamentally different from "we don't know anything yet." If you know that you never will know anything, then you are claiming to know A) that there is a god and that s/he's shy or B) that the only possible type of god--who may or may not exist--would be a shy one. A would be logically defensible, but would be theism. B) might be logically defensible but just seems to be a special case of atheism: "I haven't any evidence of a god, but here are the limits to what a god could be like."

The definition I use is indeed a philosophical concept, one that starts with a premise regarding what knowledge humans can and can't have about reality (reality simply meaning "everything". Therefore it is very different from a philosophical position that starts with the premise of "we don't know anything yet", one deals with a subset of possible knowledge one deals with all possible knowledge. Both are equally "logically defensible" positions since they both start from a premise.

 

[Georg]

I'm not saying all agnostics are atheists; that would be false.

Yes.

I'm saying that since agnosticism says, "I don't know", and by definition, none of us know, then putting the term 'agnostic' before theist or atheist is superfluous.

I got problems with that part. I agree that we don´t know. But there are people that claim to know if god(s) exist (atheists and theists alike), therefore the distinction is necessary and useful. I´ll still call myself an agnostic atheist.

 

[Yoink]

1. Having spent much of my adult life as an agnostic, I can only respond to your rubbish on that topic as "you are full of crap." I find your desire to define others' positions for them to suit your own biases both anal, and useless.

I'm trying to find out if other people have a definition that makes sense. Given your hysterical rudeness in response to a simple (and polite) inquiry, I can only assume that you don't have a definition that makes sense, that you're aware of this, and that you resort to this kind of childish rudeness out of consequent frustration.

2. If you are too lazy to take a look, I can't, and won't, help you. Others might.

Having tried civil with you, I note it merely evokes a greater assholiness from you. Glad to see you show your true colors.

I wish you the joy of your thread.

DR

Thanks--I'm finding people's responses very interesting. Your extreme sensitivity on the issue tends to confirm my feeling that the labels serve no philosophical purpose--they are markers of social attitude (I can't, for example, imagine anybody getting quite this rude on the basis of so little provocation if I'd asked if there was a real difference between nominalism and conceptualism, for example).

 

[slyjoe]

I haven't read it. Does he give a logically defensible and coherent account of "agnosticism" that would distinguish it from a logically defensible and coherent account of "atheism." If so, would you care to summarize?

I'm not sure about "logically defensible", but here are Dawkins' levels:

1. Strong Theist - 100% probability of God (I know there is a God!)
2. De facto Theist - Very high, but < 100% probability of God
3. Technically agnostic- leaning towards theism, higher than 50% probability of God
4. Impartial agnostic - exactly 50% probability of God
5. Technically atheist - leaning towards atheism, less than 50% probability of God
6. De facto atheist - Very low, but > 0% probability of God
7. Strong atheist - 0% probability of God (I know there is no God!)

Dawkins argues most people you would consider an atheist are actually De facto atheists (6) - it is probably the highest a skeptic would or should consider but (7) was included with (1) for symmetry. However, there seem to be quite a few people that do fall into (1).

Now, with these categories, can you say any are logically defensible? Based on evidence, I personally consider 6 to be really the only logically defensible position.

But that's just me

 

[Georg]

Now, with these categories, can you say any are logically defensible? Based on evidence, I personally consider 6 to be really the only logically defensible position.

But that's just me

Count me in as well.

 

[slyjoe]

Count me in as well.

OK - now it's not just me.

 

[Beerina]

Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism (or theism) is about belief.

True agnosticism says that one cannot know for certain whether or not God exists. In that sense, everyone is agnostic, although some will say they actually 'know' God does or doesn't exist.

We athiests are agnostic about God the same way we are agnostic about unicorns.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Btodd]

I got problems with that part. I agree that we don´t know. But there are people that claim to know if god(s) exist (atheists and theists alike), therefore the distinction is necessary and useful. I´ll still call myself an agnostic atheist.

I think that's giving too much credit to people who make such a claim. If we pin them down, it will become obvious that 'I know' really means 'I believe very strongly'.

Some people can claim to be aliens from outer space and also atheists, which would make them 'alien atheists', but that doesn't mean I'm going to stoop to calling myself a 'human atheist' because of their silly claim.

After all, what can we really claim knowledge of? Do I know I even exist, or is it my very strong belief? Should I then claim agnosticism about my own existence?

 

[Irony]

The part that you have wrong is the part where you say that there is no place between theism and atheism, and that there is no agnosticism. That place is full of people whether you think it should be or not.

Theist: Someone who possesses a belief in one or more gods.
Atheist: Someone who does not possesses a belief in one or more gods.

How exactly can you simultaneously possess a belief which you do not possess, not possess a belief that you possess, or not possess a belief that you do not not possess?

 

[Btodd]

We athiests are agnostic about God the same way we are agnostic about unicorns.

I hope that clears things up.

Thank you, but I don't think I'm unclear on that notion. I agree.

 

[Thurkon]

There can be no "knowledge" concerning a deity that as yet cannot be proven or disproven. There is only belief or the lack of.

An atheist lacks any belief in a god. I believe an agnostic has a more ambivalent view...sometimes they feel there might be a god, and other times they are uncertain.

Sometimes I think atheists who have battled thier culturally-programmed theism act as if atheism is a religion or belief system in and of itself. That is only a reaction to a culture that has been heavily influenced by religion, and a product of attempting to eliminate a mindset that may have been instilled and reinforced since childhood.

I tend to feel that atheism...once one is comfortable with the expulsion of theism...is simply a lack of belief. An atheist cannot state "There is no God" definitively...convincing evidence may one day be presented. Until then...an atheist feels about god as he does Bigfoot. We are unconvinced for now.

 

[Georg]

I think that's giving too much credit to people who make such a claim. If we pin them down, it will become obvious that 'I know' really means 'I believe very strongly'.

It´s not about giving them too much credit, at least not for me. Those people exist, and I do not want to be confused with them, therefore the distinction. I agree with the "pin them down" part though.

Some people can claim to be aliens from outer space and also atheists, which would make them 'alien atheists', but that doesn't mean I'm going to stoop to calling myself a 'human atheist' because of their silly claim.

I very much doubt there are as many selfproclaimed "alien atheists" (funny idea I have to admit), as there are people that claim to know if god(s) exist or not, so I see no need to establish a border between them and myself.
I understand and accept your point, but I just wanna make sure that I´m not put in the wrong camp.

After all, what can we really claim knowledge of? Do I know I even exist, or is it my very strong belief? Should I then claim agnosticism about my own existence?

You have to decide that for yourself. I´d say the evidence for my existence is quite strong.......

 

[H3LL]

I seem to be in a group of one.

The ones that are in Dawkins' "De facto atheist", to me, are looking for the identical snowflakes.


.