Agnostic Atheist; Complimentary or Contradictory?

[Daviso452]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

 

[Straw Dog]

No, I actually think the agnostic-atheist position is probably the most rational position to hold relative to a literal conception of deity. They are complimentary terms. Well, maybe the ignostic position would be most rational since it takes the Socratic method approach of asking "What do you even mean by "god"? Having said that, I also think that certain metaphorical conceptions of deity may be just as rational as long as adherents realize the distinction.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I don't think so. I'm both. I used to be both agnostic and theist, then agnostic with slight theistic leanings lol.

I would go so far as to say that no matter what you believe, you are agnostic as well, whether you know it or not. I'm sure there are some philosophical arguments against that. But how do the KNOW?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think one way to look at is, theism and atheism describe ones beliefs. Whereas agnostic describes one state of knowledge. Belief and knowledge are two different things. Anyway, there is nothing inconsistent in saying you believe so, but you're not sure.

 

[outhouse]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

your assessment of yourself is fine.

many atheist choose agnostic just because they prefer the label avoiding the atheistic stereotypes.

some like yourself have different degrees of lack of belief

its all good. dont get hung up on a label

 

[LuisDantas]

Being agnostic and atheistic is sort of the default.

If you don't quite feel like saying that there is a god - any god - then you are an atheist.

If you don't presume to know for a certainty whether there is a god, then you are an agnostic.

Since not too many of us are privy to the records of god licensing, odds are that most everyone is either agnostic (even if they don't know that) or somewhat deluded.

ETA: BTW, Gnosticism is something else entired. It is not exactly opposed by agnosticism, but rather a mystical school of thought with fairly definite characteristics.

 

[Orias]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

Being (a)gnostic of any sort is a moderate belief. Its rather basic in that its simply a moderate measurement on a scale that is extreme on two ends. The atheist after agnostic kind of helps distinguish more between leaning more towards believing in "God(s)" or not believing in "God(s)", but the possibility is always there.

 

[Willamena]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

Gnosticism and agnosticism aren't actually related, so he was right to be thrown off. Else, your position can be made soundly.

 

[Falvlun]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

Hey, welcome to the club, amigo!

I've had the same sorts of conversations: "You're an agnostic atheist? Isn't that an oxymoron?"

Personally, I think the best way to explain it is to acknowledge that there are two different senses of the word "agnostic". There is the popular definition, the one your friend is likely operating on, that defines an agnostic as someone who doesn't have an opinion either way. Then there is the technical definition, the way you and I use it, that defines agnosticism as the position of not knowing (for certain).

(A)gnosticism, in this sense, is a belief about knowledge, and not about the existence of gods.

Perhaps it would help you explain it to him if you could find a belief that he holds (alien existing, moon landing being a hoax, global warming caused by humans), but is not positive about, and then contrasting it with one that he is (the Earth orbits the sun, 2 +2 = 4, his mother's name).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

Hi, Daviso. I think it's really important to keep in mind that no such things as atheists and agnostics actually exist. That's the first thing. Once we are aware of that, it makes it seem pretty silly to argue over the nature of atheists and agnostics.

What is curious to me is that arguments such as these often become even more intense and ugly that arguments over, "Who is a real Christian?"

Of course, Christians don't exist either but they're easier to conceive. They're people who study the Bible, for example. People who think of Jesus in a positive way. People who hold membership in some church which proclaims itself to be a Christian church.

But what's an atheist or agnostic? Well, just a definition within our own minds. Usually we don't even realize that assent or disagreement with a specific string of words is required if we're to come close to defining them. We think we can define atheists and agnostics with our own paraphrases.

"An atheist is a guy who doesn't believe in God," we say.

We should be saying, "An atheist is a guy who would assent to this statement: 'God, as understood from the Bible stories, does not exist as any sort of willful Being.'"

Or whatever statement(s) we choose.

Just my opinion of it.

Anyway, my advice is that if you love your friend, and if you believe a fierce argument could cause a rift between you, you should not get back to him with your beliefs about the nature of atheism and agnosticism. If he brings it up, smile and say that he makes good sense and that you are reconsidering your opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

At times, we atheists & agnostics (I'm both) will be complimentary [sic], but we are always complementary.

 

[fantome profane]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion ...

I find it amazing what some people will get heated about.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find it amazing what some people will get heated about.

Mrs Revolt & her brother once got into a heated & painful argument about the merits of Barry Manilow.
At least it wasn't as dumb as arguing about ultimate trivialities such as fashion, baseball, or religion.

 

[Quintessence]

The word "agnostic" ends up getting used in two different ways in common usage. Technically, the correct usage is not a middle ground between atheism and theism, because it does not take a stance on the issue at all. It's a statement about knowledge and the ability to determine the truth and nature of the gods. The other way it gets used is to denote uncertainty about belief in the gods, which while not technically correct, is a common enough usage that I hesitate to call it wrong. I've also noted some people describing themselves as agnostic when they are really apatheists (the "I don't care" option).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Mrs Revolt & her brother once got into a heated & painful argument about the merits of Barry Manilow.
At least it wasn't as dumb as arguing about ultimate trivialities such as fashion, baseball, or religion.

If you can't hate Barry Manilow, who CAN you hate?

 

[arthra]

I recently had an incredibly heated discussion about what I am. I define myself as an agnostic atheist; Agnostic in what I know (or lack thereof) and atheistic in my beliefs (again, lack thereof). However my friend continued to make the argument that agnosticism is the middle position between atheism and theism. While I agree in some regards it may be, I stated that he did not understand what the three terms meant, and was completely thrown off when I brought up Gnosticism.

Currently we remain at a standstill, but I hope to continue this up again soon with him. In the meantime, I wanted to hear what you guys had to say, whether you feel I am in the wrong, or if you agree with me, maybe some things I could say to help my case. Enjoy.

Yeah an agnostic says he does not know...A gnostic knows... and an atheist says there is no God. So they are different in my view.

 

[LuisDantas]

The word "agnostic" ends up getting used in two different ways in common usage. Technically, the correct usage is not a middle ground between atheism and theism, because it does not take a stance on the issue at all. It's a statement about knowledge and the ability to determine the truth and nature of the gods. The other way it gets used is to denote uncertainty about belief in the gods, which while not technically correct, is a common enough usage that I hesitate to call it wrong. I've also noted some people describing themselves as agnostic when they are really apatheists (the "I don't care" option).

But is apatheism incompatible with agnosticism?.

 

[Falvlun]

But is apatheism incompatible with agnosticism?.

In many cases, it's technically not. But as with all the "isms", I tend to only want to apply the ones that people have actually claimed for themselves, or the ones which are the primary reason. I'm not a fan of the "included by default"... it just tends to water everything down and make it less meaningful.

 

[fantome profane]

But is apatheism incompatible with agnosticism?.

I don't know and I don't care.

 

[Daviso452]

But is apatheism incompatible with agnosticism?.

I would think so. You don't care to take a side because you have no knowledge of whether either side is correct. Sounds reasonable.