The term "Agnostic", is it viable? Problematic?

[lewisnotmiller]

I think I disagree with you.

Many do, and the most interesting conversations usually occur when that happens.

In my mind, any agenda driven search for truth (be it pro-theism, anti-theism, etc.) absolutely has linkage to the quality of logic underpinning a person's reasoning in regards to that agenda. If the first responsibility of your reasoning is proving your agenda correct, how could you ever reason clearly? How could you not fall prey to confirmation bias? How could you ever fairly consider evidence that contends with your agenda? How could you ever fully consider the implications of your own belief? How could you live an examined life?

I think we're talking past each other a little. Just to clarify what I mean, consider the following;

1) There are varying definitions of anti-theism, and they don't all include (or limit) to broad-brush anti-religious anger. You don't have to subscribe to these definitions, but they exist, and not just on messageboards.
2) Atheism and anti-theism are not mutually inclusive. One can be an atheist and NOT an anti-theist. One can be an anti-theist, and NOT an atheist.

So, rather than discussing bias/agendas I am more making the point that the logic used in deciding to be an atheist does not speak to the logic made in becoming an anti-theist. They are two separate decisions.

Of course, someone who is logically deficient, or reactionary against religion might employ the same faulty logic in both cases.

In a more broad sense, all people have bias on virtually everything. Working through that bias is something all need to do with all aspects of everything.
I agree with 9-10ths Penguin...skepticism is part of the answer to that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe there are no rational grounds can be cited in one's growth from "weak" atheism to very close to "strong" atheism. I believe this growth must necessarily be faith based.

In simple terms, I agree with Bunyip, to be honest. But my use of language probably led to this question, so I'll outline a little further.

Strong atheism is not something that can be defended logically in my opinion.
A person who has grown up in a community, been exposed to one God concept, and rejected it, might be described as an atheist.

A person who has rejected that concept, and sought information and exposure to other major religions and their concepts of God, and rejected them as well is also an atheist.

A person who has not only done that, but also gone out of their way to find information on as many religions as they can, who has studied animism, polytheism, monotheism in all their flavours, etc, etc and rejected them and their related God concepts can also be described an atheist.

Bunyips point, which I agree with, is that they are all atheists, with no distinction between 'strong' and 'weak'. But the more one has examined and considered various concepts and understandings of God, the more someone moves closer to 'strong' atheism, at least in terms of my clumsy explanation.

At no time do they become 'strong' atheists. Gnostic Atheists is probably a better term, really.

 

[Prophet]

Many do, and the most interesting conversations usually occur when that happens.

I think we're talking past each other a little. Just to clarify what I mean, consider the following;

1) There are varying definitions of anti-theism, and they don't all include (or limit) to broad-brush anti-religious anger. You don't have to subscribe to these definitions, but they exist, and not just on messageboards.
2) Atheism and anti-theism are not mutually inclusive. One can be an atheist and NOT an anti-theist. One can be an anti-theist, and NOT an atheist.

So, rather than discussing bias/agendas I am more making the point that the logic used in deciding to be an atheist does not speak to the logic made in becoming an anti-theist. They are two separate decisions.

Of course, someone who is logically deficient, or reactionary against religion might employ the same faulty logic in both cases.

In a more broad sense, all people have bias on virtually everything. Working through that bias is something all need to do with all aspects of everything.
I agree with 9-10ths Penguin...skepticism is part of the answer to that.

I think I've already said that in my understanding, an anti-theist is one who is against belief in deity. While I agree that one can be an atheist and not an anti-theist, I'd predict problems with coming up with a good scenario of the inverse, someone who believes in God who is against belief in God. I don't believe the two decisions can be separated cleanly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think I've already said that in my understanding, an anti-theist is one who is against belief in deity. While I agree that one can be an atheist and not an anti-theist, I'd predict problems with coming up with a good scenario of the inverse, someone who believes in God who is against belief in God. I don't believe the two decisions can be separated cleanly.

Fair enough. Robert Flint saw polytheists as anti-theists, since they denied monotheism.
My point isn't that you are wrong, just that your definition of anti-theism isn't universal, and dependent on definition, it's pretty easy to come up with the inverse.

 

[Prophet]

Fair enough. Robert Flint saw polytheists as anti-theists, since they denied monotheism.

Are polytheists against theism or theists just because they don't ascribe to a particular sect of theism? I don't think this is a particularly fair characterization from Mr. Flint. I'm fairly certain that said polytheists would have a better case against him in a counter accusation seeing as they've not yet penned a completely hypocritical argument to my knowledge.

My point isn't that you are wrong, just that your definition of anti-theism isn't universal, and dependent on definition, it's pretty easy to come up with the inverse.

I readily admit that Jesus often took stances against theists and theistic belief systems, but does that really make him anti-theist? Was his motive in calling out the hypocrites to destroy religious faith in God?

You could look in my backlog of posts and easily frame me as an anti-theist were you to universalize its definition in the manner you seem to suggest. I think that in itself shows that a universal definition is a dubious goal that should take second priority to ease of understanding.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive - atheism/theism speaks to what you believe, whilst agnosticism/gnosticism speaks tomwhat you know (or claim to know).

There are circumstances where agnosticism can be a mutually exclusive position so I see it more valid to say that SOMEtimes agnosticism goes with atheism and but other times it does not. I've already mentioned this to you before and you overlooked or ignored my point of which I presented reasons for. I can repeat it for you again if you'd like?

Atheism is atheism, forget about the weak/strong nonsense. I like most atheists am agnostic. Apologists label atheism 'weak' to diminish it, don't fall for it.

I'll believe what you just said after I see how an atheist debates and the conclusions they draw. I have seen too many times positive or strong atheists arguing just like 'gnostics' and so-called weak/negative atheists arguing just like positive or even gnostic atheists. I suppose that should be expected when a supposedly unopionated 'atheists' wants to actively engage on forums and in 'debates' against Christians. As an agnostic, I've argued for positions on both sides whenever I see that EITHER side (theist or atheist) has a valid point.

 

[TheGunShoj]

There are circumstances where agnosticism can be a mutually exclusive position so I see it more valid to say that SOMEtimes agnosticism goes with atheism and but other times it does not. I've already mentioned this to you before and you overlooked or ignored my point of which I presented reasons for. I can repeat it for you again if you'd like?

Not really. They aren't mutually exclusive. When you say you're agnostic that tells me that you don't know. It tells me nothing about what you believe.

So you're agnostic. We know that you don't know if a god exists. But do you believe a god exists?

I'll believe what you just said after I see how an atheist debates and the conclusions they draw. I have seen too many times positive or strong atheists arguing just like 'gnostics' and so-called weak/negative atheists arguing just like positive or even gnostic atheists. I suppose that should be expected when a supposedly unopionated 'atheists' wants to actively engage on forums and in 'debates' against Christians. As an agnostic, I've argued for positions on both sides whenever I see that EITHER side (theist or atheist) has a valid point.

If they were taking the position of a "strong" atheist as its been called, they may be a gnostic atheist. I think the majority of atheists are agnostic. They don't claim to know that no god exists for certain, they are just withholding belief until evidence is provided.

 

[TheGunShoj]

By that logic, Dawkins' expressions of strong belief in the form of attacks upon faith are necessarily faith-based which is an ominously hypocritical position to find one's self in.

Disbelief in something that has no conclusive evidence to support it does not require faith. Atheism is not a faith based position.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not really. They aren't mutually exclusive. When you say you're agnostic that tells me that you don't know. It tells me nothing about what you believe.

Sometimes they are mutually exclusive and I'll try to explain further in my next responses to you here.

So you're agnostic. We know that you don't know if a god exists. But do you believe a god exists?

Do I believe in God's existence? Yes and no. I have conflicting beliefs on the issue so I can't say that I'm an atheist or theist since those two positions require that you ONLY believe God exists or that you don't believe and NOT both or a conflict.

This conflict started when I first began to strongly doubt Christianity and instead of leaving theism completely for atheism, I got stuck somewhere in the middle. I am stuck there because I see that both sides have some good arguments and I'm currently unable to reconcile my conflicting beliefs. From this it should be clear that I don't see agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and theism but rather it just happens to be a position that doesn't conflict with my conflicting 'beliefs'.

If they were taking the position of a "strong" atheist as its been called, they may be a gnostic atheist. I think the majority of atheists and agnostic as well. They don't claim to know that no god exists for certain, they are just withholding belief until evidence is provided.

I don't share your view or more importantly i should say it would depend on what conclusions they draw. My point that you're responding means that some SAY that they're weak atheists or don't make positive claims but when they're in debate 'against' Christians they hardly sustain their unopinionated position. Lets face it, ALL atheists believe that at least one god does not exist (Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, etc) , then why not God of the Bible by that same reasoning? Most of them accept naturalism (rules out God), right?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Sometimes they are mutually exclusive and I'll try to explain further in my next responses to you here.



Do I believe in God's existence? Yes and no. I have conflicting beliefs on the issue so I can't say that I'm an atheist or theist since those two positions require that you ONLY believe God exists or that you don't believe and NOT both or a conflict.

This conflict started when I first began to strongly doubt Christianity and instead of leaving theism completely for atheism, I got stuck somewhere in the middle. I am stuck there because I see that both sides have some good arguments and I'm currently unable to reconcile my conflicting beliefs. From this it should be clear that I don't see agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and theism but rather it just happens to be a position that doesn't conflict with my conflicting 'beliefs'.

You cannot both believe in something and disbelieve in it at the same time. Theism is a positive assertion that a god exists which you either accept or reject. In my opinion, saying I don't know is the same thing as rejecting the claim. The evidence you have seen has not convinced you to the point where you accept the claim as true, therefor, you don't believe it. Would you agree?

I don't share your view or more importantly i should say it would depend on what conclusions they draw. My point that you're responding means that some SAY that they're weak atheists or don't make positive claims but when they're in debate 'against' Christians they hardly sustain their unopinionated position.

Who said atheists are not opinionated? We certainly have opinions on all sorts of things including the existence of god. Of course when an atheist is debating they are going to take up a position which assumes that god doesn't exist because that is their belief. As long as they don't assert that as fact or absolute knowlege then they are completely consistent when they say they are an agnostic atheist.

Lets face it, ALL atheists believe that at least one god does not exist (Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, etc) , then why not God of the Bible by that same reasoning? Most of them accept naturalism (rules out God), right?

Well it's quite obvious that not all gods which are claimed to exist past, present or future can all co exist so it is logically sound to say that yes, many gods do in fact not exist, perhaps all but one out of the hundreds of thousands. Assuming that any of them exist.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You cannot both believe in something and disbelieve in it at the same time.

You have not explained why. My conflicting beliefs consists of 2 separate beliefs based on different reasons. Would you accept that its possible that both sides of an issue can have evidence? If i accept that there is evidence for both sides then I can form beliefs based on those evidence and accept that both sides have some truth rather than holding any one belief as being 100% truth.

Theism is a positive assertion that a god exists which you either accept or reject. In my opinion, saying I don't know is the same thing as rejecting the claim. The evidence you have seen has not convinced you to the point where you accept the claim as true, therefor, you don't believe it. Would you agree?

I accept the claim as having some degree of truth. Belief doesn't have to be black or white or either all the way true or false. I obviously don't have firm or high confidence in these beliefs but they are still beliefs nonetheless. In action that usually manifests as me having to argue for or on both sides, something which tends to confuse or even upset theist and atheist who is one benefit I see to not choosing the theist or atheist label.

I will answer your other responses in another post later on.

 

[gnostic]

You cannot both believe in something and disbelieve in it at the same time. Theism is a positive assertion that a god exists which you either accept or reject. In my opinion, saying I don't know is the same thing as rejecting the claim. The evidence you have seen has not convinced you to the point where you accept the claim as true, therefor, you don't believe it. Would you agree?

So a person can't withhold judgement?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't share your view or more importantly i should say it would depend on what conclusions they draw. My point that you're responding means that some SAY that they're weak atheists or don't make positive claims but when they're in debate 'against' Christians they hardly sustain their unopinionated position. Lets face it, ALL atheists believe that at least one god does not exist (Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, etc) , then why not God of the Bible by that same reasoning? Most of them accept naturalism (rules out God), right?

I can happily argue against a version of God put forth and remain an agnostic atheist since I dont believe I can prove all gods dont exist.
Personally I tend to argue more against inconsistency and fundamentalism, which can be theistic, atheistic, or separate entirely anyway, and tends towards arguments about religion rather than god.

As far as naturalism, id describe myself as a methodological naturalist. Dont see any inconsistency in all this, to be honest.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Who said atheists are not opinionated? We certainly have opinions on all sorts of things including the existence of god. Of course when an atheist is debating they are going to take up a position which assumes that god doesn't exist because that is their belief. As long as they don't assert that as fact or absolute knowlege then they are completely consistent when they say they are an agnostic atheist.

You are referring to atheists who make positive claims but I'm referring to weak or negative atheists who claim to have no belief about God. These types of atheists should not be making any claims about God, but hardly do you find them sticking to their unopinionated state as soon as they start debating 'against' Christians. I assume that these weak atheists understand the definition of 'weak' or 'negative' atheists but I doubt they know how to be consistent with the definition in action through debates, etc. This is a common reason, or if not the primary reason why some view most atheists as being those who deny or reject God's existence. Active weak atheists tend to partner up with positive atheists, join them in bashing many religions, pat each other on the back, etc.. so can you blame some agnostics and Christians for viewing most or all atheists as being the same?

Well it's quite obvious that not all gods which are claimed to exist past, present or future can all co exist so it is logically sound to say that yes, many gods do in fact not exist, perhaps all but one out of the hundreds of thousands. Assuming that any of them exist.

I agree that theoretically, what you say is possible, but practically, it is hardly followed. To be fair and reasonable, I won't say that every single atheists will argue like positive or gnostic atheists, but i hope that we can do better to weed out the many that is making it so hard to tell weak atheism from strong or positive atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are referring to atheists who make positive claims but I'm referring to weak or negative atheists who claim to have no belief about God. These types of atheists should not be making any claims about God, but hardly do you find them sticking to their unopinionated state as soon as they start debating 'against' Christians. I assume that these weak atheists understand the definition of 'weak' or 'negative' atheists but I doubt they know how to be consistent with the definition in action through debates, etc. This is a common reason, or if not the primary reason why some view most atheists as being those who deny or reject God's existence. Active weak atheists tend to partner up with positive atheists, join them in bashing many religions, pat each other on the back, etc.. so can you blame some agnostics and Christians for viewing most or all atheists as being the same?

I think you're confusing positions on gods with positions about arguments and beliefs about gods.

When someone says that an argument for God is illogical, this does not necessarily imply that the conclusion that God exists is necessarily false, only that if it is true, it's not for the reasons being presented.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I can happily argue against a version of God put forth and remain an agnostic atheist since I dont believe I can prove all gods dont exist.

Most of the God debate that I've seen seems centered on either the monotheistic bible God or a deistic-like God. So if you tend to engage in debates about God, then it's safe to assume that most times you should not be identifying as a agnostic or weak/negative atheists if you argue against that god. You can say that you're an agnostic atheist about other gods but that may hardly come into play if there's no argument about those gods.

Personally I tend to argue more against inconsistency and fundamentalism, which can be theistic, atheistic, or separate entirely anyway, and tends towards arguments about religion rather than god.

Fair enough

As far as naturalism, id describe myself as a methodological naturalist. Dont see any inconsistency in all this, to be honest.

So you are open to immaterialism and/or supernaturalism? So talking donkeys and spirit beings in the Bible aren't absurd to you?! That is good to know.

 

[Prophet]

Disbelief in something that has no conclusive evidence to support it does not require faith. Atheism is not a faith based position.

Yet, attacking it does. Reference AgnosticBoy's arguments above if you need expansion.

 

[Prophet]

As far as naturalism, id describe myself as a methodological naturalist. Dont see any inconsistency in all this, to be honest.

In contrast, assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge.

I read this sentence on methodological naturalism in wikipedia and encounter the root of inconsistency in the form of a belief system that feels no burden take into account its own implications. Am I reading it wrong? Or is the sentence wrong?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Most of the God debate that I've seen seems centered on either the monotheistic bible God or a deistic-like God. So if you tend to engage in debates about God, then it's safe to assume that most times you should not be identifying as a agnostic or weak/negative atheists if you argue against that god. You can say that you're an agnostic atheist about other gods but that may hardly come into play if there's no argument about those gods.

No...that's not true at all.
But I'll try and split things up to make my view more understandable.

1) I tend to argue more against religion, than God in and of itself. So I doubt I've ever argued against a Deistic God, more than saying I don't understand the reasoning in concluding there is one. In arguing against a Christian God (for example) I'm more arguing against the likelihood of a God as presented by the Christian faith.
I don't believe such a God exists, or any other God, hence I am an atheist. I don't believe I can prove NO Gods exists, hence I am agnostic.

I think your definition of what constitutes agnostic atheism is off the mark based on your conclusions.

From Wikipedia (the source of all truths...ahem...)

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Why can't I argue against a Christian God, and still meet that definition?

So you are open to immaterialism and/or supernaturalism? So talking donkeys and spirit beings in the Bible aren't absurd to you?! That is good to know.

ROFL...that's an interesting way to take an inch and run a hundred miles.
I'm a methodological naturalist for a few reasons, but the most relevant appear to be;

1) Methodological naturalist approaches are inclusive, and allow theistic and atheistic backgrounds to work together without compromise or difference.

2) The basic assumption of following where the evidence leads, without applying pre-conceptions based on a strictly material view of the world appears logical to me.

3) There is a parallel in terms of why I am a weak atheist versus strong, with why I'm a methodological naturalist rather than philosophical

4) It avoids wasting time on a bunch of stuff we can't know (now at least) and shouldn't be catering for in science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I read this sentence on methodological naturalism in wikipedia and encounter the root of inconsistency in the form of a belief system that feels no burden take into account its own implications. Am I reading it wrong? Or is the sentence wrong?

You're extrapolating way too much from it. The whole point is to deduce a method to follow which is NOT a belief system. It's a pragmatic approach to science.