Agnostics: You're Atheists

[newhope101]

Quote: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.
Like I said below.. Could be classic example of "I know, you do not" syndrome. Never mind..wouldn't it be boring if there were never anyone to jolst with. Can you be an agnostic leaning Christian or leaning Satan or leaning Gaia or leaning something I made up all by myself?....who knows?

Quote 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.

I was thinking about Big bang theory and the thought of the beginning of time as an example of the seemingly impossible being possible. BBT appears to hang on the impossible where the general laws of relativity no longer apply, seemingly impossible. Some clarity below. I expect you know this. Sorry if the example was a bad one, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.

The singularity was a single point where the curvature of space time are infinite. It is believed that at this point the general theory of relativity (almost universally accepted as 'the' accurate description of gravity) ceases to hold true.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

But we will also trade him for a buy one, get one free coupon for All-Temperature Cheer.

 

[Eliot Wild]

But we will also trade him for a buy one, get one free coupon for All-Temperature Cheer.

You guys would still be losing on that deal. The only way to come out even is to offer them something to take me.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

I have two disagreements. Well, one-and-a-half, really.

The first disagreement is that it really isn't as simple as whether there is a god or not. It's such a vaguely defined, complicated term, that in order to break it down into two simple options, one would first have to have a good definition.

The second disagreement is not so much a disagreement with your post, but a disagreement with the way that the scale is set up. As you correctly pointed out, if someone doesn't actively believe that the martian rock is green 30 miles below the surface, then they don't possess that belief. And, if someone doesn't actively believe in a god, then the definition holds that they are atheist. But this dichotomy is inherently biased, with the positive term being one side and the negative term being the other side.

Let's say I flip a coin and hide the result, and then ask you whether you think it's heads or tails. Furthermore, I label you a "headist" if you believe it is heads, and an "aheadist" if you don't believe it is heads (so I've biased the scale in terms of language). Now, let's say that you rationally point out that, as far as you know, the chances are 50/50, so you really don't know whether it's heads or tails. In other words, you only know enough to know that you don't know.

In this scenario, both you and someone who explicitly believes it is tails are labeled as aheadists. This is unfortunate, because the language is not precise. And it's not precise because of the biased labeling scheme I've set up. Is it fair to say that you "don't believe it's heads"? Not really- that would be misleading. Similarly, it's not particularly fair to say that an agnostic "doesn't believe in god(s)", because that language is misleading.

Agnosticism is a useful term as a position on knowledge, and one needn't label their self necessarily as a theist or an atheist if they feel that the language of the terms doesn't precisely describe their viewpoint towards deities.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

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.

We offer a moderate starting salary, but excellent benefits (including dental), 4 weeks paid vacation, great job security, and fast-track advancement opportunities for individuals with leadership potential. In fact, you can telecommute and be your own boss.

 

[doppelganger]

We offer a moderate starting salary, but excellent benefits (including dental), 4 weeks paid vacation, great job security, and fast-track advancement opportunities for individuals with leadership potential. In fact, you can telecommute and be your own boss.

That sounds suspiciously like Amway.

 

[Penumbra]

That sounds suspiciously like Amway.

No, not at all!

In fact, you can train others to do some of your work, and you can receive a part of their earnings. If you train four people, you reach the diamond level, and if you train 8, you'll reach the emerald-platinum level. And it's great, because if the people you train go on to train others, you get a small percentage of their profits too, kind of like a pyramid.

 

[Rhizomatic]

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.

That's only true of theism. As atheism is a lack of theistic belief, it doesn't matter that theism (and thus atheism) is entirely predicated upon specific Western notions--you still either have the belief or don't.

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.

I don't disagree that agnostics can run the full spectrum of theist to hard atheist, but that doesn't really change how I feel about defining it along lack of belief and thus as half of an inescapable dichotomy. Someone with no concept of god is an atheist. Someone who doesn't care at all (and doesn't possess a positive belief in gods accordingly) is an atheist. Someone who believes is a theist and someone who doubts is (by the very concept of doubt) someone who believes.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's only true of theism. As atheism is a lack of theistic belief, it doesn't matter that theism (and thus atheism) is entirely predicated upon specific Western notions--you still either have the belief or don't.

The opposite would seem to hold true IMO. Because atheism (and theism) are usually defined in relation to a western concept (which is not well-defined even in such a chauvinistic context, but let's let this aside for the moment), the concepts become completely arbitrary in other cultures.

Take Shinto, for instance. Is it a theistic belief? Shinto's Kami are nothing like God and are treated in a very different way, despite a strong tendency to intentionally ignore that difference "to seek common ground".

I don't disagree that agnostics can run the full spectrum of theist to hard atheist, but that doesn't really change how I feel about defining it along lack of belief and thus as half of an inescapable dichotomy.

That I can see. But it is still not a half-measure, but instead a whole different angle. An almost unrelated angle, at that.

Someone with no concept of god is an atheist. Someone who doesn't care at all (and doesn't possess a positive belief in gods accordingly) is an atheist. Someone who believes is a theist and someone who doubts is (by the very concept of doubt) someone who believes.

Please elaborate in this last part. How can a believer be that because he doubts, exactly?

 

[idea]

I think Atheists are really agnostics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most of us atheists are also agnostics, indeed. Even if many don't bother thinking about that.

 

[Penumbra]

I think Atheists are really agnostics.

I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

 

[averageJOE]

This whole "weak atheist" term sounds like a sub-genre created because they don't like the word agnostic. Is there such a thing as a "weak theist"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think there would be?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

This whole "weak atheist" term sounds like a sub-genre created because they don't like the word agnostic. Is there such a thing as a "weak theist"?

Yes--someone who believes in a deity but not that its presence can be proven.

 

[Rhizomatic]

The opposite would seem to hold true IMO. Because atheism (and theism) are usually defined in relation to a western concept (which is not well-defined even in such a chauvinistic context, but let's let this aside for the moment), the concepts become completely arbitrary in other cultures.

Take Shinto, for instance. Is it a theistic belief? Shinto's Kami are nothing like God and are treated in a very different way, despite a strong tendency to intentionally ignore that difference "to seek common ground".

I'm not really bothered/ surprised by the idea that a Western cultural concept can be arbitrary/ irrelevant to another culture; what's important for me is that it is logically-cohesive. In the case of Shinto I would be inclined to agree with you that kami are not gods and thus Shinto is not inherently theistic. The concept may be arbitrary from their perspective, but from our perspective we can still look at someone from another culture and determine whether or not they hold theistic belief, and those are still the only two possibilities.

That I can see. But it is still not a half-measure, but instead a whole different angle. An almost unrelated angle, at that.

Agreed.

Please elaborate in this last part. How can a believer be that because he doubts, exactly?

To me doubt implies belief. You doubt an idea you hold, not one you don't--I sometimes doubt that I'm on the right career path (though most of the time I'm very excited about it), but I wouldn't say that I doubt that there is a unicorn hiding under my bed. When you describe someone who doubts the existence of god, I think of someone who has belief but also has serious problems with that belief and thus is facing certain levels of uncertainty.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As an honest and rational person, I'm both agnostic and an atheist.

I can't say that I believe in the existence god(s): I'm an atheist.

I don't know whether something I would label as god(s) exists: I'm agnostic.

 

[Rhizomatic]

Yes--someone who believes in a deity but not that its presence can be proven.

I've never heard the term used like that--it's always been to denote someone who only lacks belief in god(s) (as opposed to a hard atheist who actively believes that they are not real).

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I've never heard the term used like that--it's always been to denote someone who only lacks belief in god(s) (as opposed to a hard atheist who actively believes that they are not real).

I was referring to agnostic theists, which I was for a short time during my deconversion.

 

[waitasec]

is saying "i don't know, how can i ever presume to" agnostic?