On The Notion That 'all Agnostics Are Atheists' ...

[Darius]

I've been doing some online reading tonight, trying to understand the differences between an agnostic and atheist, and I've seen thoughts expressed like below:

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Since agnostics don't believe in a god, they are also atheists. Many of them simply don't like the negative connotations of atheism.

 

Simply put, everyone is either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in God or you don't. Either a light switch is on, or it isn't. Binary system, you can't be anywhere in between.

As I see it though, this is not necessarily a binary equation. For example, if you have a cat, and I don't know for sure what color it is, I can either believe that the cat is black (theist) or not believe it (atheist). However, the fact is that there has not been enough information provided to me to draw an opinion one way or the other, so I have to admit that I simply don't know.

 

Of course, I could do research into what is the most common color of cats, and make a guess based on that information. However, this certainly wouldn't qualify as a belief. It's like asking, 'I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 5. Do you believe it is 3?' How the hell should I know? On the other hand, if you told me the specific breed of the cat, and then I found out that 95% of cats in that breed were black, then I could say that indeed, yes... I believe your cat is probably black.

 

As for the labels themselves, some would say they are not needed, since we don't have labels to describe the belief/lack of belief in a flying spaghetti monster. However, the undeniable fact is that the universe got here SOMEHOW, so to me this is more a question of how somebody thinks that happened, vs 'do you believe in a specific god'.

[Cianna200]

Well a agnostic is just a person who is uncertain of whether or not there is a god. Agnostics keep in mind that god may exist but his existence cannot be proven or disproven. You can say agnostics are people who keep an mind that god may exist but they expect evidence, while an atheist has already made up their mind that there is no god.

[Margee]

Hi Darius! Welcome to Ex-c! From what I understand, an atheist will simply say that he see no evidence for god whatsoever, where an agnostic will say I can not prove it one way or the other. I need simple explanations and this one made sense to me. I personally do not see any evidence for a personal god but I am amazed at nature and evolution, that we have developed the brain to do space travel and evolve to the point where man can do just about anything now...that fascinates me. Whether that was started by the big bang on purpose, I don't know. I just think it's amazing that we are here at all.

 

*hug*

[mymistake]

I think Cianna200's definition for agnostic best fits the way people use the word.  Generally we want to convey the emotional certainty we have or lack.  Atheism comes in the range from hard atheism which concludes that gods do not exist to soft atheism which is simply a lack of belief in gods due to a lack of evidence for them.  There is overlap.  Soft atheism is not much different than agnosticism.  But I think it would be a mistake to lump all agnostics in the same boat.  I know there are agnostic believers because for a while I was one.  And believe me it was not atheism.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm an apatheist.  I'm indifferent to the existence of god(s).

[Vigile]

For some reason, many people get hung up on these particular labels.  Some spend far too much time and energy trying to suss out the nuance here.  But, as far as I can tell, the only difference between a soft atheist (someone who doesn't believe in gods, but makes no positive claims) and an agnostic is that the atheists also tend to think there probably aren't any gods whereas the agnostic thinks there's a possibility. 

[Vigile]

I'm an apatheist.  I'm indifferent to the existence of god(s).

 

A couple of other members claim this label too.  I wonder though, how can someone who spends time on a message board like this truly consider themselves indifferent?  It seems contradictory to the interests displayed simply by participating in these discussions.  *asked entirely out of curiosity, not accusation. 

 

[Blood]

I've been doing some online reading tonight, trying to understand the differences between an agnostic and atheist, and I've seen thoughts expressed like below:

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Since agnostics don't believe in a god, they are also atheists. Many of them simply don't like the negative connotations of atheism.

 

Simply put, everyone is either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in God or you don't. Either a light switch is on, or it isn't. Binary system, you can't be anywhere in between.

As I see it though, this is not necessarily a binary equation. For example, if you have a cat, and I don't know for sure what color it is, I can either believe that the cat is black (theist) or not believe it (atheist). However, the fact is that there has not been enough information provided to me to draw an opinion one way or the other, so I have to admit that I simply don't know.

 

Of course, I could do research into what is the most common color of cats, and make a guess based on that information. However, this certainly wouldn't qualify as a belief. It's like asking, 'I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 5. Do you believe it is 3?' How the hell should I know? On the other hand, if you told me the specific breed of the cat, and then I found out that 95% of cats in that breed were black, then I could say that indeed, yes... I believe your cat is probably black.

 

As for the labels themselves, some would say they are not needed, since we don't have labels to describe the belief/lack of belief in a flying spaghetti monster. However, the undeniable fact is that the universe got here SOMEHOW, so to me this is more a question of how somebody thinks that happened, vs 'do you believe in a specific god'.

 

 

"Agnostic" was invented by TH Huxley because he didn't understand what atheism meant. It is a completely superfluous word that unnecessarily complicates rather than clarifies the issue at hand.

 

 

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.

 

[Deva]

Wish we could have a label that says "I don't believe in the Christian God, but there could be others." To a Christian, I am an atheist because I don't believe in God as they have defined God. But, the word "atheist" implies that one cannot or does not believe in any sort of God. That simply isn't applicable to me. I'm more the agnostic. Does this make sense? Or, is it a cop out?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I'm an apatheist.  I'm indifferent to the existence of god(s).

 

A couple of other members claim this label too.  I wonder though, how can someone who spends time on a message board like this truly consider themselves indifferent?  It seems contradictory to the interests displayed simply by participating in these discussions.  *asked entirely out of curiosity, not accusation. 

 

 

I'm not indifferent about the existence of christianity or of the very real damage it does to people's lives.  To me, that's different than being indifferent towards the question of god's existence.  And it is also the reason I stick mainly to this website and don't go to atheist/agnostic websites.

[Cianna200]

Like deva, I don't believe in the christian god, I believe in true god called love,life and the universe. As wiccan, I believe that true god is in everyone and that the earth is the embodiment of the feminine aspect of God called Gaia.

[Darius]

My original intent for creating this thread was not to get into a pissing contest between the meaning of agnostic or atheist, but to offer a counterpoint to those who insist that there's nothing in between belief and non belief.

[amateur]

My dad used to say, "How am I supposed to know if there's a god?  I suppose when we die we'll find out if there's anything or not," then he'd just laugh and shrug his shoulders.  I grew up with that, and it was his entire conversation about it, and it always seemed really agnostic to me.  That seems pretty much in the middle between belief and non-belief to me.

[WarriorPoet]

From the tv show House

 

• Foreman during the time Cameron is mad at him for "stealing the article": "God would probably want you to take the stick out of your butt and get over this."
  Cameron: "If there is some higher order running the universe, it's probably so different from anything our species can conceive there's no point in our even thinking about it. But I doubt It gives a damn about my butt."
  Foreman: "You believe God might exist, but you don't think about it? It's the most important issue—"
  Cameron: "I think penguins might as well speculate about nuclear physics. Why are we haIving this conversation?"
  Foreman: "What? I'm curious."
  Cameron: "You cannot tell someone they're your colleague and not a friend, then casually chat about the afterlife." [#219]

I think that the op is a bit backwards.  Most atheists are a little agnostic.  I think that I can speak for a lot of people on this site when I say that we would be very willing to change our views given sufficient evidence that our views are wrong.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think it depends on how you slice "atheist."

 

Weak atheist: "I do not believe in God." I think this boils down to "It is not the case that I believe in God."

 

Strong atheist: "I believe there is no God."

 

So if you equate weak atheist with non-theist, the agnostic can be folded in with the weak atheist. It's not the case that the agnostic believes in God. This "folding in" move presumes there is a range of positions within the non-theist camp.

 

Obviously, this breakdown presumes ability to believe. Someone who is brain dead prob. can't be classified as an actual or active theist or non-theist at the time of being brain dead. Etc.

[MerryG]

My original intent for creating this thread was not to get into a pissing contest between the meaning of agnostic or atheist, but to offer a counterpoint to those who insist that there's nothing in between belief and non belief.

 

This entire site is already a counterpoint to that kind of ignorance-based duality.

 

Nobody who spent time here and genuinely listened to the stories and views of Ex-Cs could possibly see the agnostics and atheists among us in such stereotypical ways.

[florduh]

To add to this eternal game of semantics and labels I can say this. Similar to what has been stated, I am convinced that the Christian god, as described with his contradictions, does not, cannot exist. There is no evidence for any other versions of a god, either. So the probability is nil and the possibility is irrelevant; anything one may imagine is technically possible, but few things are proven or even probable. Nobody can prove to me that my neighbor, Tony, is not in fact God. The probability is, however, so low that I live my life as if Tony is not God. I am intellectually agnostic when it comes to Tony (or Raelians, fairies, etc.) because I must be, but for practical purposes I would assert that Tony is not God and that would make me a Tony atheist to most people. The probability that any gods exist despite the lack of evidence makes me comfortable with the easily (!) understood term atheist.

[Vigile]

Adding to what Florduh wrote, can something exist which no one can define?  To even wonder about such an animal is nonsensical if you really consider what it is you're wondering about -- or not wondering, since you can't even make up your mind what it is you're supposed to be wondering about in the first place. 

[florduh]

can something exist which no one can define?

 

Those of a philosophical bent would probably say yes. But indeed, why waste time contemplating something you can't even define? Many do thrive on such exercises, however.

[Deva]

 

can something exist which no one can define?

Those of a philosophical bent would probably say yes. But indeed, why waste time contemplating something you can't even define? Many do thrive on such exercises, however.

 

Can something exist which no one can define? Many would say the "self" is an example. Yes, I am one of those who thrive on this stuff.

[florduh]

 

Can something exist which no one can define? Many would say the "self" is an example. Yes, I am one of those who thrive on this stuff. 

 

 

"Self" seems defined to me, though there may be disagreements on the details. The self is a pattern of awareness and continuity, at least for the span of a life. What that means or what the capabilities of that self are can be debated, but we all know what we're talking about. One may imagine that the self is independent, a fragment or a larger self, eternal, merely an illusion, etc., but we are talking about the same idea of self. The identity and awareness a person has can and has been studied, we may guess at some other special qualities we'd like the self to have. The question I see as useless is, "Can you imagine something you can't imagine?" That is exactly what we're saying when we say we believe in a god (I suppose because we feel we must), but that god is indefinable or unknowable.

[Deva]

 

 

Can something exist which no one can define? Many would say the "self" is an example. Yes, I am one of those who thrive on this stuff. 

 

 

"Self" seems defined to me, though there may be disagreements on the details. The self is a pattern of awareness and continuity, at least for the span of a life. What that means or what the capabilities of that self are can be debated, but we all know what we're talking about. One may imagine that the self is independent, a fragment or a larger self, eternal, merely an illusion, etc., but we are talking about the same idea of self. The identity and awareness a person has can and has been studied, we may guess at some other special qualities we'd like the self to have. The question I see as useless is, "Can you imagine something you can't imagine?" That is exactly what we're saying when we say we believe in a god (I suppose because we feel we must), but that god is indefinable or unknowable.

 

Oh, the question is now "Can you imagine something you can't imagine"  To me, that is a different question from "can something exist which no one can define?"

 

You are capable of imagining anything - the sky's the limit.  But for something to "exist?" Most people take that as being something outside of your own private thoughts. You and I can agree a certain tree exists, but "the can you imagine something you can't imagine" question, makes no sense.

[florduh]

Oh, the question is now "Can you imagine something you can't imagine"  To me, that is a different question from "can something exist which no one can define?"

 

Dat ole debbil semantics! 

 

I agree with you about the nonsense question, That was my point. To imagine, or posit, that something exists but we can't/don't know what it might be like is, to me, the same question. I think such an unknown/unknowable thing could possibly exist, but if we can't know what it is, circle, circle, circle...where can that line of questioning ever get us? In our entire history it has cleared up nothing, so I expect more of the same result today and tomorrow. So something we can't relate to or understand could exist, but how would we know and how do we talk about it in a useful way?

[Deva]

I still don't think its the same question though.

 

We know that we exist, in some way. What I wonder is whether or not the way in which we think we exist is true or not. Its just an interesting idea to explore.  What do you expect to get from the questioning? Perhaps to arrive at a truth we have not seen before.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I still don't think its the same question though.

 

We know that we exist, in some way. What I wonder is whether or not the way in which we think we exist is true or not. Its just an interesting idea to explore.  What do you expect to get from the questioning? Perhaps to arrive at a truth we have not seen before.

I think it would be more accurate to say, "We know that our consciousness exists."  Everything else is just what our consciousness perceives and those perceptions may be inaccurate, but we trust them because we have no other alternative.