Agnostics: You're Atheists

[Penumbra]

Huh? You ought to check out the article.

Ok I did. If anything it supports what I said.

Some respondents associated atheism with illegal behavior, like drug use and prostitution: "that is, with immoral people who threaten respectable community from the lower end of the social hierarchy." Others saw atheists as "rampant materialists and cultural elitists" who "threaten common values from above -- the ostentatiously wealthy who make a lifestyle out of consumption or the cultural elites who think they know better than everyone else."
Given the relatively low number of atheists in America, and the even lower number who are public about their atheism, Americans can't have come to their beliefs about atheists through personal experience and hard evidence about what atheists are really like. Furthermore, dislike of atheists doesn’t correlate very highly with dislike of gays, immigrants, or Muslims. This means that dislike of atheists isn't simply part of a larger dislike of people who are "different."

One doesn't fix silly stereotypes by hiding from them.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm personally an agnostic. But I'm an agnostic theist. My beliefs can be described, to a point, as fideism. So I don't think I could be considered an atheist at all.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Ok I did. If anything it supports what I said.


One doesn't fix silly stereotypes by hiding from them.

To each her own. I think the atheist-vs-agnostic question is an important one, but not nearly as important as how this fundy-dominated society treats both (?) groups of people.

 

[Misty]

Atheism/agnosticism seems to be a big deal in the US, unlike the UK where most people, apart from Christian fundies, couldn't give a 4X what you believe as long as you don't try to shove your beliefs down the throat of others.

 

[Tathagata]

An Agnostic can either be a Theist or an Atheist, but in most cases are Atheist.

An Agnostic is taking an epistemological stance and not a belief stance. They can claim that it can't be known whether God exists or not, but they still have to answer the question "do you personally believe God exists or not" despite our abilities to know for certain. In most cases, an Agnostic will have to answer no, they don't believe therefore making them Agnostic Atheists.


.

 

[gnostic]

They are the reason Pascal wrote his wager...

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

Well, I have been offered such wager, twice, and I had rejected each time.

 

[LuisDantas]

That certainly doesn't mean that you are not agnostic. Pascal's Wager is unfortunately quite useless, except as an example of lousy argument.

 

[gnostic]

That certainly doesn't mean that you are not agnostic. Pascal's Wager is unfortunately quite useless, except as an example of lousy argument.

I didn't accept the wager, because it was dishonest approach, and that didn't sit well with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite right you are!

 

[gnostic]

These took place (the Pascal's Wager being offered to me) years before I even knew what agnosticism is. Actually over 2 decades ago, now.

I have only heard of agnosticism about 5 or 6 years ago. Didn't even know that there was such a word for my philosophical stance in regard to theism (existence of god).

In fact, I didn't even know what Pascal's Wager was, back then. At both times, the people who were trying to baptise me in their churches, put a similar scenario to me, about life insurance and getting hit by car, tomorrow or next week.

 

[doppelganger]

An Agnostic is taking an epistemological stance and not a belief stance.

.

Hear! Hear! :clap:clap

 

[gnostic]

Is agnosticism about about what we know, or what we don't know, as oppose as to what we believe (or don't believe)?

Knowing seemed more important than believing.

 

[Reptillian]

The differences between atheism, theism, and agnosticism always seemed pretty clear to me...ask each of these individuals the question "Is there a god?" and they'll say either "No", "Yes", or "I don't know". It seems irrational to say that you do or don't believe in a god if you also claim that its impossible to know if one exists. As far as Pascal, I've always rather liked him as a philosopher. In particular I like his stance on the nature of man and his relationship to the universe. One of my favorite quotes comes from Pascal, "Man is so necessarily mad that to not be mad would amount to another form of madness."

 

[LuisDantas]

The differences between atheism, theism, and agnosticism always seemed pretty clear to me...ask each of these individuals the question "Is there a god?" and they'll say either "No", "Yes", or "I don't know".

You are correct. It is still possible to answer "I don't know" alongside with "but I believe that...".

It seems irrational to say that you do or don't believe in a god if you also claim that its impossible to know if one exists.

Exactly. And yet it happens, legitimally, because as Tathagata and Doppelganger said, agnosticism is a phylosophical stance, while atheism and theism are both belief stances. The only incompatibility among the three is between theism and atheism.

In fact, while there are who disagree with me, even strong atheism is compatible with agnosticism (my case), because I can legitimally claim to have no proper means for determining whether there is a God. I am pretty sure that there is none, but that is still a personal conviction as opposed to a proven, established fact.

 

[gnostic]

My agnostic stance required evidences, before I can accept that a deity exist.

Since there are no evidences beyond the scriptures and so-called prophets, I have to say it is highly unlikely that a god exist, if not improbable.

Evidences would give me knowledge or knowing of the unknowable. Knowing should come first, before any belief.

 

[Rhizomatic]

The differences between atheism, theism, and agnosticism always seemed pretty clear to me...ask each of these individuals the question "Is there a god?" and they'll say either "No", "Yes", or "I don't know". It seems irrational to say that you do or don't believe in a god if you also claim that its impossible to know if one exists.

Examples are fun.

I don't know what color Martian rock is 30 miles beneath the surface. The way you (any many people in common usage) look at atheism/agnosticism/theism would be asking "hey, what color is Martian rock 30 miles down?" and me having the option to respond "yes/no/I don't know" (and, of course, choosing the latter--agnostic but neither atheist nor theist).

The perhaps more technical use of agnosticism (and what Huxley actually meant by the word) and of atheism/theism gets more complicated. Here atheism and theism aren't a stance, but a lack or presence of a specific belief. So you ask, "Rhizomatic, do you have the belief that Martian rock is green 30 miles beneath the surface?"

Here "I don't know" isn't an answer; I either have the belief or I don't. I have no way of knowing the truth, and I know that it is possible that the rock is green, though it's also possible that it's a different color. I'm agnostic in the sense that I know that I can't know the answer (we'll pretend that there is next to no scientific knowledge of Mars and its composition for me to look up). While I don't actively reject the beleif in green Martian rock I also don't posses it.

Everyone has to have or lack belief in god(s). Those are the only two options, and (a)theism determines where you fall on that scale. If you don't know if there is a god or not, then you obviously don't possess belief in god (theism), and are thus a (weak) atheist. It seems obvious that humans cannot prove or disprove with certainty proposed entity that infinitely transcends them and cannot be directly observed at will, and I can't really say that I see any contradiction between that epistemological stance and holding or lacking belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Allow me to nitpick.

Everyone has to have or lack belief in god(s). Those are the only two options, and (a)theism determines where you fall on that scale.

While that is close enough to the truth for most western social situations, it is not at all an absolute truth. Atheism and theism are both dependent on a certain set of social and anthropological circunstances. In a way, they are both Abrahamic concepts, even.

There is no inherent, self-evident concept of God, except maybe on an individual level. Not all of those concepts adequately support the dichotomy between theism and atheism, either.

If you don't know if there is a god or not, then you obviously don't possess belief in god (theism), and are thus a (weak) atheist.

This, too, is not necessarily true. It will be true for those people who believe that he lack of proof either way must dictate their belief (or lack of same) in God. Many other people simply belief or doubt without letting the impossibility of proof weight them down.

Agnostics can be weak atheists, and often are. But they can also be theists, strong atheists, and there are probably some pure apatheist agnostics out there, perhaps mainly among more isolated communities (native south americans and the like) that never learned of the concept of god.

It seems obvious that humans cannot prove or disprove with certainty proposed entity that infinitely transcends them and cannot be directly observed at will, and I can't really say that I see any contradiction between that epistemological stance and holding or lacking belief.

Fully agreed.

 

[newhope101]

For me not putting faith in a God that cannot be scientificaly proven is not a dumb thing to do.

Having confirmed knowledge that mankind does not know everything (ie a singularity is opposed by physics) allows the seemingly impossible to be possible.

As prevously commented, taking 'a side' does not make it right. Perhaps some may see "taking sides' as saying "I know,and you do not"....and that does not sound healthy.

For me, being agnostic, is having one's mind open rather than closed. If being open minded is overcomplicated by the intellectual into a bad position to be in. Then I'm glad I'm not intellectual.

 

[LuisDantas]

For me not putting faith in a God that cannot be scientificaly proven is not a dumb thing to do.

Agreed. Neither is it a dumb thing to put faith in such a God. It doesn't matter either way.

Having confirmed knowledge that mankind does not know everything (ie a singularity is opposed by physics) allows the seemingly impossible to be possible.

Well, it is not like we would know "everything" if concepts such as singularities did not arise, either. And sure, many things that seemed to be impossible turned out to be possible. I just don't see a connecion to the subject matter.

As previously commented, taking 'a side' does not make it right. Perhaps some may see "taking sides' as saying "I know,and you do not"....and that does not sound healthy.

Is there even a right or wrong side when it comes to belief in God? I think not. A believer has the responsibility to deal with the consequences of his belief, but believing is not wrong in and of itself.

For me, being agnostic, is having one's mind open rather than closed. If being open minded is overcomplicated by the intellectual into a bad position to be in. Then I'm glad I'm not intellectual.

It is not hard to be agnostic, and it is certainly not significantly harder for intellectuals to be that either.

 

[Eliot Wild]

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.

I have never really approached the issue with so much focus on the "us-and-them", group-appropriate dichotomy aspect of it. I have simply applied the label of agnostic to myself because it seemed most appropriate. As someone else indicated, I see this as more of a question of knowledge, as an epistemological classification rather than as a belief label. Personally, I can't form a belief one way or the other about something for which I lack sufficient knowledge.

However, after talking to some of my fellow agnostic friends, they are prepared to put me up for trade to either the atheists or the theists, depending on who is willing to make the best offer. They would like to start the bidding for me, an irreverent agnostic jerk, at three million over the next two years, a first-round draft pick and a player to be named later.