Agnostics: You're Atheists

[jmvizanko]

Agnosticism is "the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." - Wikipedia (the last stop for all truth...)

A person can be an atheist or a theist, and still recognize that ultimately they cannot know with certainty that a god does or does not exist. After all, all that anyone can know with absolute certainty is that one's mind exists. So everyone except the irrational must be agnostic by definition, for to deny that some version of solipsism is a possibility is an arbitrary assumptive preference.

So why do weak atheists (those who think there may be a god, but do not personally believe there is one) insist on calling themselves agnostics? Agnosticism is independent of where one places themselves on the scale of probability of god's existence, excepting the 2 extremes of claiming to know that god does or does not exist. In the common understanding, sure, agnosticism means being in the middle on this scale of probability. But technically, if you don't have a belief that god exists, you are an atheist. So get over the stigma of the term already, and call yourself an atheist, and specify weak atheist if the term really bothers you. But that is what you are.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good points, although I wonder how universal they may be.

You may want to check these threads too:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/non-theism/98420-defining-atheism-nontheism-etc.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/98419-religious-perspectives-atheism.html

 

[jmvizanko]

Good points, although I wonder how universal they may be.

You may want to check these threads too:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/non-theism/98420-defining-atheism-nontheism-etc.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/98419-religious-perspectives-atheism.html

I'm sure the topic has been beat to death, and I apologize if I am being ad nauseum. That being said, what do you mean by questioning the universality of my points? If they make sense, why wouldn't they be universal?

 

[Michigan Atheist]

To me agnostics are wimps. I have a LOT more respect for Theists than I ever will for agnostics, either god exists or he does not, PERIOD. Take a side, stop being a sissy. I really dislike those "agnostics" who claim to know EVERYTHING about religon and spout it and shout it, and thump their chests. Agnostics are some of the worst bible thumpers, dogmatics on this site. But, I disagree with you in one thing, I believe that AGNOSTICS are theists who don't want to get beat up too badly by the atheists, and want to stay on the good side of the theists. They are the reason Pascal wrote his wager...

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sure the topic has been beat to death, and I apologize if I am being ad nauseum. That being said, what do you mean by questioning the universality of my points? If they make sense, why wouldn't they be universal?

Because matters involving belief in God are extremely subjective, meaning that their truth will vary according to the subject (person).

Some, perhaps most agnostics are indeed weak atheists as well. Many atheists dislike the rejection that the word brings and will choose to present themselves as agnostics instead. But there are always exceptions, including agnostic theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

To me agnostics are wimps. I have a LOT more respect for Theists than I ever will for agnostics, either god exists or he does not, PERIOD. Take a side, stop being a sissy.

What is wrong in admiting not to know whether there is a God? It is not like we are supposed to know.

That said, I completely agree that agnosticism does not exclude either theism or atheism. But taking sides on a matter seems strange to me. This is not like politics, where one may choose a side hoping to bring about significant changes; atheism is not a proposal to destroy God, theism is not about creating God. "Holy war" is a weird enough proposition coming from those who belief in God, and if anything it is even harder to justify when the proponents don't even believe that there is a God to be followed.

In other words, I don't see why agnostics would be "sissies". Maybe you expect them to challenge theism? That is not always important, and you might want to consider the negative impact of using such heavy words against people that you have only the most vague idea about.

I really dislike those "agnostics" who claim to know EVERYTHING about religion and spout it and shout it, and thump their chests. Agnostics are some of the worst bible thumpers, dogmatics on this site.

Now this is a sweeping, unfair generalization if I ever saw one. Calm down and breathe, pal.

But, I disagree with you in one thing, I believe that AGNOSTICS are theists who don't want to get beat up too badly by the atheists, and want to stay on the good side of the theists. They are the reason Pascal wrote his wager...

Well, you are simply wrong.

 

[doppelganger]

Sorry. Fail.

 

[Penumbra]

Agnosticism is "the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." - Wikipedia (the last stop for all truth...)

A person can be an atheist or a theist, and still recognize that ultimately they cannot know with certainty that a god does or does not exist. After all, all that anyone can know with absolute certainty is that one's mind exists. So everyone except the irrational must be agnostic by definition, for to deny that some version of solipsism is a possibility is an arbitrary assumptive preference.

So why do weak atheists (those who think there may be a god, but do not personally believe there is one) insist on calling themselves agnostics? Agnosticism is independent of where one places themselves on the scale of probability of god's existence, excepting the 2 extremes of claiming to know that god does or does not exist. In the common understanding, sure, agnosticism means being in the middle on this scale of probability. But technically, if you don't have a belief that god exists, you are an atheist. So get over the stigma of the term already, and call yourself an atheist, and specify weak atheist if the term really bothers you. But that is what you are.

You are correct that agnosticism is independent of where one places themselves on the scale of probability of god's existence (apart from the endpoints). Agnosticism and atheism, generally, are indeed in different categories as opposed to being along the same spectrum. Atheism is a position about the existence of deities while agnosticism (when used in relation to this subject) is a position about the lack of knowledge of the existence of deities.

Agnosticism, however, is a useful term to use for someone who is fairly close towards the middle of the spectrum between atheism and theism, and also views the answer to the question as unknown or unknowable. There definitely are many people who really aren't sure about the existence of various god concepts and don't particularly fall within either category.

To me agnostics are wimps. I have a LOT more respect for Theists than I ever will for agnostics, either god exists or he does not, PERIOD. Take a side, stop being a sissy. I really dislike those "agnostics" who claim to know EVERYTHING about religon and spout it and shout it, and thump their chests. Agnostics are some of the worst bible thumpers, dogmatics on this site.

Taking a side simply for the sake of taking a side is foolish. It shouldn't be about tribalism, or "us vs. them" mentalities.

Theist and atheist are useful terms, but to deride those that are neither makes no sense.

-Lyn (an atheist)

 

[Penumbra]

They are the reason Pascal wrote his wager...

Well, you are simply wrong.

Actually from reading the Pensees, I'd agree with him on that single line. Pascal basically did seem to write the wager for agnostics.

 

[doppelganger]

Actually from reading the Pensees, I'd agree with him on that single line. Pascal basically did seem to write the wager for agnostics.

Nah. I'm pretty sure he wrote it for idiots.

 

[Penumbra]

Nah. I'm pretty sure he wrote it for idiots.

Have you read the Pensees?

 

[doppelganger]

Have you read the Pensees?

Yes, for an upper division philosophy of religion class about 20 years ago.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, for an upper division philosophy of religion class about 20 years ago.

How much of it do you remember?

The wager part of his work focused primarily on those who felt that they did not have enough evidence to believe, but who had too much evidence to not believe. Those that wanted to be believers but weren't quite believers.

Idiotic? For sure. But still addressed primarily to agnostics.

-Lyn

 

[doppelganger]

How much of it do you remember?

I remember most of what I read.

The wager part of his work focused primarily on those who felt that they neither had enough evidence to believe, but had too much evidence to not believe. Those that wanted to be believers but weren't quite believers.

Idiotic? For sure. But still addressed primarily to agnostics.

-Lyn

Right, he wrote it for people who could be convinced to pretend to believe something they don't actually believe out of fear of reprisal from a distorted caricature of "God" that they also don't believe in. The idiots who thought this was worth doing might have called themselves "agnostics," but they would still be idiots.

 

[Penumbra]

I remember most of what I read.

Right, he wrote it for people who could be convinced to pretend to believe something they don't actually believe out of fear of reprisal from a distorted caricature of "God" that they also don't believe in. The idiots who thought this was worth doing might have called themselves "agnostics," but they would still be idiots.

Idiots, but still agnostics.

Pascal himself was kind of crazy but also a genius, though. It's a shame that his name is mostly remembered due to his wager.

 

[doppelganger]

Idiots, but still agnostics.

Pascal himself was kind of crazy but also a genius, though. It's a shame that his name is mostly remembered due to his wager.

As a mathematician he was a true genius. As a philosopher he was so-so. Specifically as a philosopher of religion, he was trite and very limited.

 

[Penumbra]

As a mathematician he was a true genius. As a philosopher he was so-so. Specifically as a philosopher of religion, he was trite and very limited.

True, though I'd chalk it up to life experiences.

The guy was very sickly and miserable his entire life (and eventually died at only 39 years old, I believe). Plus he was not too skilled socially, and also never had a partner. And he claims to have had a personal experience with Yahweh at one point when he nearly died. One must also keep in mind that the Pensees, the work that contains his wager and other religious philosophy, was published after his death from scraps, him never having finished it.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Agnosticism is "the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." - Wikipedia (the last stop for all truth...)

A person can be an atheist or a theist, and still recognize that ultimately they cannot know with certainty that a god does or does not exist. After all, all that anyone can know with absolute certainty is that one's mind exists. So everyone except the irrational must be agnostic by definition, for to deny that some version of solipsism is a possibility is an arbitrary assumptive preference.

So why do weak atheists (those who think there may be a god, but do not personally believe there is one) insist on calling themselves agnostics? Agnosticism is independent of where one places themselves on the scale of probability of god's existence, excepting the 2 extremes of claiming to know that god does or does not exist. In the common understanding, sure, agnosticism means being in the middle on this scale of probability. But technically, if you don't have a belief that god exists, you are an atheist. So get over the stigma of the term already, and call yourself an atheist, and specify weak atheist if the term really bothers you. But that is what you are.

Have you ever considered that atheists are the single most-hated minority in America, even more than Blacks and Muslims, and that we HAVE to sport a more mellow label out of sheer necessity?

 

[Penumbra]

Have you ever considered that atheists are the single most-hated minority in America, even more than Blacks and Muslims, and that we HAVE to sport a more mellow label out of sheer necessity?

What necessity?

One doesn't stop their group from being hated by pretending they don't exist.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

What necessity?

One doesn't stop their group from being hated by pretending they don't exist.

Huh? You ought to check out the article.