Agnostic atheism is indeed a thing. It's agnosticism applied to atheism. The agnostic will say, "I don't hold a belief about the number of gumballs in the jar." The atheist will say, "Yup! Those are some gumballs, alright."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
A person doesn't believe in something due to insufficient evidence. It is lack of sufficient evidence that causes a person to fail to believe.
No, the atheist says "I don't hold a belief that the number of gumballs is even." The agnostic says "I don't know the number of gumballs."
Apply this to the theistic claims now.
Agnostic atheism: "I don't hold a belief that a god or gods exists and I don't claim to know whether they exist or not."
Last edited:
The atheist isn't concerned about what we can or cannot know in the natural world. Everything in the natural world, by definition, is knowable. Any concerns the atheist might have are rested, there. The real concern is about a "real" supernatural being that allegedly can be mystically known by only a select few, whether through revelation or practice, or cannot be known at all.
Anyone can say "I don't hold a belief about the number of gumballs and I don't claim to know what it is." That's not atheism. Atheism says, "...but there is a number."
Insufficient evidence is reason to believe in absence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually not everything in the natural world is by definition knowable. In fact the work of Godel tells us that at least in math somethings, even if correct, cannot be proven:
Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia
In the natural world there may be some things that we never get the answer to.
Yes I am. My answer to many things may be "I don't know", but I would also like to know.
No, that's not atheism. Atheism is simply not accepting that a god or gods exists. With the gumballs example, it's not accepting that the number of gumballs is even. If I count the gumballs and there turns out to be an even number of gumballs in the end, I will accept that. Until the count comes in, I'm not even going to believe any claim of an even number.
Are you going to keep telling me what I believe? That's not going to get you very far.
I don't know the work and can't comment on that.
It's not about you, honey.
Mine, too. That's agnosticism.
I agree with what is highlighted, but the analogy is stretch. To claim an even or odd number of gumballs before the count is in is nothing but a guess. That's not a belief.
For the atheist, there simply is no room for "God or gods" in the world. Their worldview lacks gods, and so the suggestion of gods is not something they can accept (for whatever individual reasons).
Atheism is ONLY concerned with the existence, or not, of a God or gods. That's the traditional view.
It's not about you, or even me. It's about the atheist. Please don't take this discussion personally.
Atheism (and its atheist) is one thing, agnosticism (and its agnostic) another.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Only in absence of evidence.
It is, honey. I'm an atheist. This thread is about what atheists believe.
Yes, which is a part of agnostic atheism.
People can believe things without knowing. Knowledge just concerns your level of certainty.
Atheism isn't a worldview. It sounds like you are thinking of philosophical naturalism. Some atheists are philosophical naturalists, but that doesn't define atheism.
I can accept the existence of a god as soon as it is a warranted belief. I welcome any attempts to present this. It would change everything if a god existed, and I'd love to know about it if that was true.
Okay, you're back on the right track here. That is the only thing atheism deals with. That doesn't mean atheism is about believing that a god or gods do not exist though. It's just not accepting that they do exist. You can back away from one belief without taking up the opposing belief. That's the entire purpose of the gumball analogy.
I'm an atheist. If you want to know what atheists believe, try listening to them instead of telling them.
Well, no, that's just a wish for more evidence.
Do you not separate the two? The failed analogy of gumballs at least makes an attempt to separate the two.
Also, do you not separate the idea from the person? It's rather necessary for this discussion to continue.
Still, a guess is not a belief, and the analogy calls for a guess.
Still, the worldview that lacks gods is an atheist's.
You can someday, and good for you. But what you are now is what is useful for definition. And what the atheist is is another matter. (And the agnostic yet another matter.)
It's all one track.
The gumball analogy entirely FAILS to demonstrate that you can back away from one belief without taking up the other. Rather, it demands that the other accept some stupid guess as their alleged belief (i.e. strawman). Well, they don't.
It would seem that you are the one suggesting that what it means to be an atheist is more than just not believing in God or gods.
They are not mutually exclusive. They don't have to be to be able to be separated.
I am an agnostic and I am an atheist. To describe my full position concerning god beliefs, I am an agnostic atheist.
In fact, I am trying to make sure conversation is productive. If you want to discuss someone's beliefs, it's a good idea to ask them what they believe. If you don't accept what they say about their beliefs, conversation halts exactly where we are now.
Guesses can lead to beliefs. To stick with the analogy, some people also might try to use unsupported methods to determine the number of gumballs before counting them, leading them to their beliefs about the number.
It's not a worldview. Individual atheists have worldviews, but atheism isn't their worldview. Many atheists actually disagree about their worldviews in completely different ways. You'll never herd these cats. It's part of why atheists are hardly ever organized together.
I am one type of atheist. That's useful in showing you that your earlier argument cannot be applied to atheism as a whole. Only certain subsets of atheism fit what you were describing.
Then you are misunderstanding the gumball analogy entirely. I'll try explaining that again. If I do not believe that there is an even number of gumballs, does that mean that I believe there is an odd number of gumballs?It's all one track.
No. Where did I do that? Atheism only means not believing in a god or gods. I have other positions beyond that, but those are described with other labels I hold (agnosticism, Secular Humanism, etc.)
Sure, I can separate them. I can combine them. How and when I do that depends on the context of the conversation.
Last edited:
Okay. But originally the discussion was about atheists, not agnostic atheists.
If we make it an entirely impersonal discussion, it would be even more productive. When I am speaking about the atheist, I am not speaking about any individual atheist, but the idea. You have beliefs, and I do, but neither of us is the atheist who is the personification of the idea of atheism. No individual is.
Still, guesses are not beliefs.
Still, the worldview that lacks gods is an atheist's. You will not find one atheist saying, "Oh, and I believe in a god."
It's not helpful to turn what was said around and try to pose it another way.
Fair enough. My earlier argument was in support of atheism. You introduced arguments in support of agnostic atheism. Telling me you're an agnostic atheist doesn't sway my view of the atheist one bit. I compartmentalize them.
Do you believe there is a god? If the answer is "no" then I'm safe saying you're an atheist.
Now, let's apply that to the analogy. Do you believe there is an even number of gumballs? The only possible answer apart from a guess is, "I don't know." If the analogy claims yes or no for belief for even or odd, I call fail because atheists aren't stupid. If the analogy doesn't claim yes or no for belief for even or odd, we're back to, "I don't know."
Either way, it's just an analogy about agnostics, not atheists.
Now, let's apply that to the analogy. Do you believe there is an even number of gumballs? The only possible answer apart from a guess is, "I don't know." If the analogy claims yes or no for belief for even or odd, I call fail because atheists aren't stupid. If the analogy doesn't claim yes or no for belief for even or odd, we're back to, "I don't know."
Either way, it's just an analogy about agnostics, not atheists.
With the analogy that you introduced.
I am an atheist.
When you're speaking about the idea of atheism, you're attributing things to the whole that are not generally true to the whole. You seem to be addressing a subset of atheists. The reason it's important for me to stand out as an individual here is to show you that you are overgeneralizing.
I didn't say that. I said guesses can lead to beliefs.
It's not a worldview. It's a response on a specific question. A worldview is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. It takes more than not believing in one concept to make a worldview. Worldviews require positive views.
The point of bringing up agnostic atheism was to show you that there is a whole branch of atheism that doesn't fit what you are ascribing to atheism as a whole.
No. You're right. I am an atheist based on that response.
The analogy is asking the question "do you believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar?"
Why do you think that I can't say "I don't know the number of gumballs" while also saying, "no, I don't believe there is an even number of gumballs" at the same time? You're trying to make it sound like atheists jump right to the claim of an odd number all the time, and that isn't true.
No, it's about atheism vs theism. The theist position in the analogy is "I believe there is an even number of gumballs." The atheist position is "I do not believe there is an even number of gumballs." The atheist position here does not have to comment on whether there is an odd number of gumballs to still not believe that there is an even number of gumballs.
The analogy is making the point that atheism means not believing in a god or gods, or in the words of the analogy, not believing that there is a even number of gumballs.
Which, you admit, is qualified by agnosticism.
No, I am attributing things to the idea. I'm not addressing set theory at all. To make what I say about you is to personalize it.
And my response was that guesses are not beliefs. Not even close.
I give up. You didn't hear what I said, no worries.
It's just atheism qualified by agnosticism. If you keep them separate, it's quite easy to see.
You can give the agnostic response, "I don't know the number of gumballs." Any of us can, even atheists. But to say, "I don't believe there is an even number of gumballs," is to claim that there is an odd number of gumballs. I don't see the atheist in that. No one can do that logically when the number is obviously unknown.
The analogy fails. Not believing that there is an even number of gumballs is a statement about the apparent truth of the even number of gumballs.
Last edited:
It's an additional label that I use to differentiate myself from gnostic atheists. Atheism as a whole, which is what we're talking about in this thread, is still a label that applies to me.
Atheists are people. Without those people, there would be no atheism. What's wrong with talking personally when I am an atheist? You seem to have no issue accepting that I am an atheist, but at the same time you are talking about the idea of atheism as if it doesn't fit me. Where is the disconnect?
And my response was... no, we're going in circles now. I think you understand me here by now. Or you should.
I understood you, but okay. Did you at least understand me?
Let's keep it separate for a moment then. We've already established that atheism means not believing in a god or gods. Where does that definition say that an atheist must believe there are no gods? There are atheists that do not take that additional position. That position is extra.
Question 1: Do you believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 1: No, I do not believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.
Question 2: Do you believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 2: No, I do not believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar.
I would answer both of those questions exactly like that. I do not believe either is true before the jar can be properly counted.
No, that's not how it works. You're creating a false dichotomy. Let me split this into two questions for you to display why.
Question 1: Do you believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 1: No, I do not believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.
Question 2: Do you believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 2: No, I do not believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar.
I would answer both of those questions exactly like that. I do not believe either is true before the jar can be properly counted.
Atheism isn't about knowledge. It's about belief. I don't have to take up a belief either way. I'm not saying it's "not even". I'm saying I don't hold the belief that it's even. Can you spot the difference?
The analogy doesn't fail. You're just misunderstanding it. I stated why above with the two questions of odd and even separated.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You atheists and agnostics sound like a bunch of beleivers arguing about what they believe. It's kinda funny.
It is a bit funny. I didn't think this was so difficult.You atheists and agnostics sound like a bunch of beleivers arguing about what they believe. It's kinda funny.