13 ms·

It seems disingenuous to mix Agnosicism with Atheism. Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of ne

by jbm 16y ago

It seems disingenuous to mix Agnosicism with Atheism. Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism)

philwelch 16y ago
Atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal: 1. If you believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are a theist agnostic. (This is not that silly. Many people believe things they do not claim to know. For instance, you can believe that P != NP while acknowledging the question as unproven and unknown.) 2. If you don't believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are an atheist agnostic. 3. If you claim to know, not just believe, that a god exists, you're a theist (but not an agnostic). 4. If you claim to know there are no gods, you're an atheist (but not an agnostic).
- alanh 16y ago
  For strict definitions of these words, you are right. In practice I find the following equivalent list of terms more common: 1. Deism 2. Atheism 3. Theism 4. Strong atheism
  - philwelch 16y ago
    During the Enlightenment, which was the heyday of deism, philosophical proofs of God's existence were still taken seriously by most deists. So they weren't agnostic at all--they claimed to know, based upon reason, that God existed. A perfectly consistent Enlightenment-era viewpoint. However, since they only go as far as "God exists" and never get to the more exotic beliefs, namely the beliefs which always were and always will be taken on faith (God had a human son, who was also God, died, and was resurrected; God chose a Middle Eastern ethnic group for a special purpose; God revealed prophecies to certain people; God is from outer space) they weren't religious.
- klodolph 16y ago
  5. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be meaningfully answered due to flaws in the nature of the question, then you are a theological noncognitivist. 6. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered before defining "god", then you are an ignosticist. An ignosticist who claims that "god" cannot be defined is therefore also claiming that "does a god exist?" can never be answered. 7. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" is not worth answering, then you are apatheistic. 8. Alternatively, if you choose to assume that the answer to the question, "does a god exist?" is "no", but do not consider it worth the effort to attempt to answer the question conclusively, then you are apatheistic. 9. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered because the question cannot be correctly communicated due to differences in the definition of "god" and/or "exist" between the idiolects of the persons attempting to communicate the question to each other, then you are a philosophy major. 9b. If (9) above applies but you manage to work the word "qualia" into the discussion, then you are a philosophy major and I'm changing the subject.
  - igravious 16y ago
    10. If God exists but denies your existence then what does that make you? A stance of mine is: try not to talk to people who believe that they have a "rational" or "empirical" proof of God's existence for no bigger fool will you find.
- Gormo 16y ago
  I think a lot of the arguments that conclude that believing in God is irrational are actually prevaricating on the word "believe". You qualified definition '1' with "this is not silly" - on the contrary, I think it is in many cases the most reasonable option.
Tycho 16y ago
as far as everyday life goes, would it make a difference? Being part of the religions usually means various changes to your routines
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Although, an agnostic who is aware of the implications of Pascal's Wager would probably still implement those changes.
  - reader5000 16y ago
    Not if you're an agnostic in regards to e.g. Buddhism rather than brimstone Christianity.
  - revolvingcur 16y ago
    Pascal's Wager is ridiculous. It is rooted in a false dichotomy and attempts to salve the conscience by the acceptance of a contradiction.
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      I'm not sure there is a false dichotomy present there. You're either going to burn in hell or you're not. The downside of trying something to get out of that sentence is small and upside is big. It's terrible theology but it's decent logic.
      - Tycho 16y ago
        I think it's a false dichotomy because there is more than two possible outcomes. At one end you have 'there is no god' in which case it doesn't matter, fine, but then at the other end there's more than just 'worship God' - there's also 'worship multiple Gods', or 'worship the devil', or endless other possibilities of worship, with no strong reason to pick any one of them. Unless I have misunderstood the Wager.
        16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
anthonyb 16y ago
Agnostics are just sissy Atheists.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  What? They are so - they don't believe in God, but also don't want to bring down the hellfire and brimstone just in case they're wrong!
RK 16y ago
Really comes down to a matter of definitions. For example, many would claim that atheism is simply the lack of a belief. Some would define agnosticism as the positive belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But these are just example definitions.
- jeromec 16y ago
  I agree definitions vary, and that can cause confusion. For example, people unsure of what to believe can label themselves agnostic. Some call this "fence sitting". At the same time there is what's called weak atheism and strong atheism, the latter asserting there are no gods, which of course is a stupid assertion to make in an absolute sense. So weak atheism makes the most sense as it makes no assertion; it's just the absence of belief. So a weak atheist could technically be labeled agnostic, which is how I define myself, and appears the most rational definition for having no god belief.
  - amatheus 16y ago
    There's a definition to atheism I've read once that I think it's the best way to define what atheism means to me: An atheist doesn't believe in god the same way he doesn't believe in santa claus, or werewolves. It's not that he can positively proof god does not exist, only that there's no reason, given current evidences, to believe.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Exactly. :)
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Grouping atheists with agnostics is as catch-all as 'Christianity'. I was educated Anglican and to me it's as vastly different from Catholicism as you can tell, my youth minister was actually a methodist and the assistant was baptist. My shop teacher was actually a Quaker, who actively disbelieved in the hierarchical structure of church, who was the person who probably put me on a path to agnosticism. My agnosticism is of the - God's existence cannot be proven or disproven (at least in my lifetime, or potentially within the human races existence as homo sapiens) so it's illogical to take the side of religion or anti-religion. The logical conclusion (to me) is that it is an unknowable variable, concerning myself with it is a wasted effort. Besides Greek Mythology has all the cool stories, Heracles slaying Hyrdas and freeing Prometheus. If religion can't entertain me in the slightest then it truly holds no value to me.
mkramlich 16y ago
bundling those together is approx equal to saying one is non-superstitious/non-makebelieve.
chc 16y ago
I wouldn't agree with this assessment. Atheism is not a knowledge claim; it's just disbelief in God. Similarly, I don't believe in intelligent life on other worlds, but that isn't a knowledge claim — there's just no good reason to believe in it. Agnosticism, however, is a knowledge claim: It's the claim that God is is unknowable.
- nwomack 16y ago
  I have to respectfully disagree. I think you have your definitions mixed up. Agnosticism is 'There may be a god, but I don't care enough to claim one way or the other', I think the 'fence sitting' argument is good. Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins Atheism is a stronger claim than Agnosticism.
  - sjwright 16y ago
    > Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins You have just misquoted Richard Dawkins.
  - sjwright 16y ago
    Your description of agnosticism is also wrong; you described apatheism. Agnostic: Unsure. Apatheist: Doesn't care. Atheist: Rejects theism.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      You can be all of the three. I don't believe there is a god, so I am Atheist. I also don't think the answer to "is there a god?" can be answered definitiely. That makes me Agnostic. I also think that since the answer cannot be determined, the question is a silly one. That makes me an Apathist too.
  - alanh 16y ago
    Who is upvoting this? Dawkins - and according to the Dawkins scale / the poll he ran, most atheists - do not claim there is no god. (That's "strong atheism" and a minority viewpoint, as it is a faith statement.) He rejects Christianity, etc., but leaves open the possibility that some definition of a god may exist, while claiming that such a being is unlikely and unproven.
jfr 16y ago
If Agnosticism and Atheism (and nonreligious) were different options I would have a problem choosing which one to vote (and I think many other people here too). There is a lot of overlap among these options, and the definitions vary. There is more than one definition of Atheism (some classify them in weak and strong atheism, but even these two classes aren't enough for some), and there are different "levels" of Agnosticism depending on your country or culture. Some of these differences are because of communication issues. For example, there is controversy if "lack of belief" and "disbelief" are synonymous (compare with "not liking" and "disliking"). When books on such topics are translated to other languages, such nuances may get lost.
hugh3 16y ago
Except that I'm not sure that true atheists, as distinct from agnostics, actually exist. Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely. The real distinction is between "teapot agnostics", who think gods are incredibly unlikely, and "proper" agnostics, who actually think it's reasonably probable. Many teapot agnostics will call themselves atheists just for the sake of saving time.
- alanh 16y ago
  I prefer "strong atheism" in lieu of the Scottsman-esque term "true atheism." After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.
- tzs 16y ago
  I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true. Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each. Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.
  - chegra 16y ago
    I think the Santa Claus analogy is a poor one since the story of Santa Claus or his existent doesn't solve any know problems. God solves a lot of problems, like where do we come from. To me agnosticism is being open to possibilities and admitting at this current level nobody has all the answers. Why would they want to Cop out? In most people's mind Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing. [Edit: If you are downvoting it will be helpful if you post a reply]
petercooper 16y ago
Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism) Sure, but making a knowledge claim doesn't make it any less objective or wise than being neutral. I can say that there is definitely not a red 1982 Chevy Silverado orbiting Jupiter and that's a "knowledge claim", yet someone who says they're not sure or are neutral about my claim don't hold a superior position in any sense and would, in fact, look a little silly given the lack of evidence against it.
- chegra 16y ago
  Absence of evident is not the evident of absence.

by jbm 16y ago

It seems disingenuous to mix Agnosicism with Atheism. Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism)

philwelch 16y ago

Atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal: 1. If you believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are a theist agnostic. (This is not that silly. Many people believe things they do not claim to know. For instance, you can believe that P != NP while acknowledging the question as unproven and unknown.) 2. If you don't believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are an atheist agnostic. 3. If you claim to know, not just believe, that a god exists, you're a theist (but not an agnostic). 4. If you claim to know there are no gods, you're an atheist (but not an agnostic).

alanh 16y ago
For strict definitions of these words, you are right. In practice I find the following equivalent list of terms more common: 1. Deism 2. Atheism 3. Theism 4. Strong atheism
- philwelch 16y ago
  During the Enlightenment, which was the heyday of deism, philosophical proofs of God's existence were still taken seriously by most deists. So they weren't agnostic at all--they claimed to know, based upon reason, that God existed. A perfectly consistent Enlightenment-era viewpoint. However, since they only go as far as "God exists" and never get to the more exotic beliefs, namely the beliefs which always were and always will be taken on faith (God had a human son, who was also God, died, and was resurrected; God chose a Middle Eastern ethnic group for a special purpose; God revealed prophecies to certain people; God is from outer space) they weren't religious.
klodolph 16y ago
5. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be meaningfully answered due to flaws in the nature of the question, then you are a theological noncognitivist. 6. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered before defining "god", then you are an ignosticist. An ignosticist who claims that "god" cannot be defined is therefore also claiming that "does a god exist?" can never be answered. 7. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" is not worth answering, then you are apatheistic. 8. Alternatively, if you choose to assume that the answer to the question, "does a god exist?" is "no", but do not consider it worth the effort to attempt to answer the question conclusively, then you are apatheistic. 9. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered because the question cannot be correctly communicated due to differences in the definition of "god" and/or "exist" between the idiolects of the persons attempting to communicate the question to each other, then you are a philosophy major. 9b. If (9) above applies but you manage to work the word "qualia" into the discussion, then you are a philosophy major and I'm changing the subject.
- igravious 16y ago
  10. If God exists but denies your existence then what does that make you? A stance of mine is: try not to talk to people who believe that they have a "rational" or "empirical" proof of God's existence for no bigger fool will you find.
Gormo 16y ago
I think a lot of the arguments that conclude that believing in God is irrational are actually prevaricating on the word "believe". You qualified definition '1' with "this is not silly" - on the contrary, I think it is in many cases the most reasonable option.

Tycho 16y ago

as far as everyday life goes, would it make a difference? Being part of the religions usually means various changes to your routines

sliverstorm 16y ago
Although, an agnostic who is aware of the implications of Pascal's Wager would probably still implement those changes.
- reader5000 16y ago
  Not if you're an agnostic in regards to e.g. Buddhism rather than brimstone Christianity.
- revolvingcur 16y ago
  Pascal's Wager is ridiculous. It is rooted in a false dichotomy and attempts to salve the conscience by the acceptance of a contradiction.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    I'm not sure there is a false dichotomy present there. You're either going to burn in hell or you're not. The downside of trying something to get out of that sentence is small and upside is big. It's terrible theology but it's decent logic.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      I think it's a false dichotomy because there is more than two possible outcomes. At one end you have 'there is no god' in which case it doesn't matter, fine, but then at the other end there's more than just 'worship God' - there's also 'worship multiple Gods', or 'worship the devil', or endless other possibilities of worship, with no strong reason to pick any one of them. Unless I have misunderstood the Wager.
      - 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

anthonyb 16y ago

Agnostics are just sissy Atheists.

anthonyb 16y ago
What? They are so - they don't believe in God, but also don't want to bring down the hellfire and brimstone just in case they're wrong!

RK 16y ago

Really comes down to a matter of definitions. For example, many would claim that atheism is simply the lack of a belief. Some would define agnosticism as the positive belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But these are just example definitions.

jeromec 16y ago
I agree definitions vary, and that can cause confusion. For example, people unsure of what to believe can label themselves agnostic. Some call this "fence sitting". At the same time there is what's called weak atheism and strong atheism, the latter asserting there are no gods, which of course is a stupid assertion to make in an absolute sense. So weak atheism makes the most sense as it makes no assertion; it's just the absence of belief. So a weak atheist could technically be labeled agnostic, which is how I define myself, and appears the most rational definition for having no god belief.
- amatheus 16y ago
  There's a definition to atheism I've read once that I think it's the best way to define what atheism means to me: An atheist doesn't believe in god the same way he doesn't believe in santa claus, or werewolves. It's not that he can positively proof god does not exist, only that there's no reason, given current evidences, to believe.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Exactly. :)
electromagnetic 16y ago
Grouping atheists with agnostics is as catch-all as 'Christianity'. I was educated Anglican and to me it's as vastly different from Catholicism as you can tell, my youth minister was actually a methodist and the assistant was baptist. My shop teacher was actually a Quaker, who actively disbelieved in the hierarchical structure of church, who was the person who probably put me on a path to agnosticism. My agnosticism is of the - God's existence cannot be proven or disproven (at least in my lifetime, or potentially within the human races existence as homo sapiens) so it's illogical to take the side of religion or anti-religion. The logical conclusion (to me) is that it is an unknowable variable, concerning myself with it is a wasted effort. Besides Greek Mythology has all the cool stories, Heracles slaying Hyrdas and freeing Prometheus. If religion can't entertain me in the slightest then it truly holds no value to me.

mkramlich 16y ago

bundling those together is approx equal to saying one is non-superstitious/non-makebelieve.

chc 16y ago

I wouldn't agree with this assessment. Atheism is not a knowledge claim; it's just disbelief in God. Similarly, I don't believe in intelligent life on other worlds, but that isn't a knowledge claim — there's just no good reason to believe in it. Agnosticism, however, is a knowledge claim: It's the claim that God is is unknowable.

nwomack 16y ago
I have to respectfully disagree. I think you have your definitions mixed up. Agnosticism is 'There may be a god, but I don't care enough to claim one way or the other', I think the 'fence sitting' argument is good. Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins Atheism is a stronger claim than Agnosticism.
- sjwright 16y ago
  > Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins You have just misquoted Richard Dawkins.
- sjwright 16y ago
  Your description of agnosticism is also wrong; you described apatheism. Agnostic: Unsure. Apatheist: Doesn't care. Atheist: Rejects theism.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    You can be all of the three. I don't believe there is a god, so I am Atheist. I also don't think the answer to "is there a god?" can be answered definitiely. That makes me Agnostic. I also think that since the answer cannot be determined, the question is a silly one. That makes me an Apathist too.
- alanh 16y ago
  Who is upvoting this? Dawkins - and according to the Dawkins scale / the poll he ran, most atheists - do not claim there is no god. (That's "strong atheism" and a minority viewpoint, as it is a faith statement.) He rejects Christianity, etc., but leaves open the possibility that some definition of a god may exist, while claiming that such a being is unlikely and unproven.

jfr 16y ago

If Agnosticism and Atheism (and nonreligious) were different options I would have a problem choosing which one to vote (and I think many other people here too). There is a lot of overlap among these options, and the definitions vary. There is more than one definition of Atheism (some classify them in weak and strong atheism, but even these two classes aren't enough for some), and there are different "levels" of Agnosticism depending on your country or culture. Some of these differences are because of communication issues. For example, there is controversy if "lack of belief" and "disbelief" are synonymous (compare with "not liking" and "disliking"). When books on such topics are translated to other languages, such nuances may get lost.

hugh3 16y ago

Except that I'm not sure that true atheists, as distinct from agnostics, actually exist. Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely. The real distinction is between "teapot agnostics", who think gods are incredibly unlikely, and "proper" agnostics, who actually think it's reasonably probable. Many teapot agnostics will call themselves atheists just for the sake of saving time.

alanh 16y ago
I prefer "strong atheism" in lieu of the Scottsman-esque term "true atheism." After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.
tzs 16y ago
I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible. Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true. Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each. Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.
- chegra 16y ago
  I think the Santa Claus analogy is a poor one since the story of Santa Claus or his existent doesn't solve any know problems. God solves a lot of problems, like where do we come from. To me agnosticism is being open to possibilities and admitting at this current level nobody has all the answers. Why would they want to Cop out? In most people's mind Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing. [Edit: If you are downvoting it will be helpful if you post a reply]

petercooper 16y ago

Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism) Sure, but making a knowledge claim doesn't make it any less objective or wise than being neutral. I can say that there is definitely not a red 1982 Chevy Silverado orbiting Jupiter and that's a "knowledge claim", yet someone who says they're not sure or are neutral about my claim don't hold a superior position in any sense and would, in fact, look a little silly given the lack of evidence against it.

chegra 16y ago
Absence of evident is not the evident of absence.