Discussions
Why rob atheism of its meaning?
Posted by diabolicomix • 6/26/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: atheism, religion
I've noticed elsewhere that there is a tendency among a few forumgoers to conflate atheism with agnosticism. I have nothing but the deepest respect for both of these world-views, but it leaves me perplexed that an agnostic would want claim to be an atheist. If a person is willing to admit that there is a small chance of the existence of a deity (even some arbitrarily small fraction of a chance) this is still not atheism -- which by definition affirms the non-existence of God. Maybe its just a sort of short hand, when we're talking about nonbelievers with respect to popular world religions, being atheists relative to Christianity for example? Is there a perception that agnosticism is somehow "weak" or "wishy washy?" Isn't calling yourself an atheist intellectually dishonest when you admit to a possibility of some sort of deity or creator?
User Comments
-
I think it's important to let all atheists alone. Some may want to join the Cult of the Red Panda when they realize that I am the chosen panda. -
Maybe there should be non-holy war between agnostics and atheists over the one true unbelief. -
I'll buy that for a dollar.
Agnostics and Atheists are two different belief structures (or non belief as it were). But I do think that you are on to something about lumping the two in together for the purpose of identitifing a certain rejection of popular religious systems.
It's much clearer and easier to simply say "Atheist" when one does not want to get into any long drawn out explainaitions of their beliefs, or to make sure that one does not open themselves up to an unwanted religious lecture or sales pitch.
Kinda like when I say I'm "allergic" to a food. I usually have an intolerance, which is not the same. However using "allergy" gets the point across that I cannot have the food regardless of the semantical differences, without all of the pressure to just "try a bite".-
That was actually a very good analogy
-
Well said Anok!
-
Precisely, Anok. -
Thank you
-
-
I think you are wrong there (surprise, I know!).
'Atheism' does not necessarily mean the assertion that there is no god, and when the term first started being used it was directed at Christians because they didn't believe in the pantheon but only believed in one god.
I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god, but I am unwilling to say that there definitely is no god because I cannot be absolutely sure because I don't know everything. It's the same as my not believing in Santa or fairies...I don't believe that they exist, but I cannot ever say that without a doubt fairies don't exist because I cannot ever know absolutely everything.
People who identify as agnostics usually haven't decided/worked out what they believe or if they believe in god. Atheists don't believe in god. Allowing for the minute possibility that we are wrong doesn't make us agnostics.-
Exactly.
In order to be an atheist a person need not be so arrogant as to announce the unknowable: that god(s) do not exist. One need only fail to believe that they exist.
There is insufficient empirical evidence to lead me to believe that god(s) exist, and so I do not. But I am not arrogant or fatuous enough to think that I am infallible or omniscient, so it is entirely possible that I could be proven wrong one day. Until that day, however, I am perfectly content to believe that invisible magicians do not exist.
It is entirely possible to be an atheist and also know that one is human and therefore fallible, that what one believes is not necessarily the same as objective reality. -
So, I'm an atheist after all. I certainly agree that the term requires much less explanation (and covers a lot less theological territory) than agnosticism. I just thought it was cheating to use it when I can't completely discount the possibility that I'm wrong. However, if lots of atheists feel the same way then I'll happily adjust my terminology. -
I've never met an atheist who doesn't allow for the possibility that there could be a god. Even Hitchens and Dawkins allow for the possibility.
-
Hitchens and Dawkins aren't exactly the most intellectual rigorous of thinkers, I'm afraid. Very bright gentlemen both, but when it comes to philosophy they are often lacking.
-
*sigh*
They are 2 of the most famous public atheists, though. -
I was always under the impression that agnostics allowed far more room for belief than atheists did.
The agnostic prayer for example: Dear God if there is a God save my soul if I have a soul.
I wouldn't expect an atheist to think even remotely with that much doubt - even if they do allow a small margin of error in the form of "Well, we don't know everything".
In other words, admitting you don't know everything isn't actually stating you believe in the supernatural - because you don't. It only leaves room for that small margin of error - not doubt. Where as the agnostic is far more capable of saying or believing that there is something more out there, not as a margin of error - but as true doubt to both atheism and religion.
-
-
I think agnosticism is an intellectual position and atheism more an existential one. I think if you live your daily life as if no god or external force exists to aid you in your struggle to survive and that the burden rests solely on you, you're an atheist. You don't pray, you don't participate in religious ceremonies, you don't expect divine intervention because you've followed certain rules and uttered certain words or performed particular actions. Intellectually, it's almost impossible to avoid the posture of agnosticism. But in the way one actually lives, one can certainly be atheistic. -
Great replies so far everybody, keep em coming! I am interested to hear all perspectives.
Sweetviolet said "In order to be an atheist a person need not be so arrogant as to announce the unknowable: that god(s) do not exist."
The dictionary definition of "agnostic" says: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
So it seems that anyone who regards the existence or nonexistence of God as "unknowable" is by definition an agnostic. With all deference to nothingprofound, this is not a question of self-styling but rather of objective definition.
So my question remains, why the resistance?-
I would point you to NP's response which deals with your question.
Technically we are agnostics, but for all intents and purposes we are atheists. The common usage of the term 'agnostic' refers to people who don't know what they believe, not that that they believe that they can't ever know. -
So you don't think I'm wrong after all.
-
I think you're wrong in your claim that atheism affirms the non-existence of God, and that the reason we call ourselves atheists rather than agnostics is because we don't want to be weak or wishy-washy, and that we're being intellectually dishonest to use the term 'atheist'.
-
You seem to be trying to equate atheism with arrogance. Your position appears to be that in order to self-identify as an atheist, I must also take the position that my belief is an objective reality.
Bulldust!
What I believe and what is reality MAY be one and the same...and they MAY NOT. One, however, has no bearing on the other.
One is not an agnostic if one lacks a belief in god(s), one is an atheist. The fact that one does not believe in the existence of god(s) is, in fact, the core definition of the word "atheist." That one is not so arrogant to insist one's belief (or lack thereof) is an objective fact does not make one an agnostic, just honest and in possession of a modicum of humility. -
I think you are not wrong sweetviolet but you aren't right either.
I would never intend to equate any belief with arrogance, that was your word IIRC, so if you don't like it applied to yourself maybe you ought to reexamine your own beliefs.
If a person has a core belief that meets the definition of "agnostic" but, as your say, "self-identifies" as an atheist, we might call this person an atheist-of-convenience (or as NP calls it, the existential atheist). As observed above by Anok and NP, this atheist-of-convenience does not observe religious practices or profess a belief in God, but when it comes to an argument, the atheist-of-convenience retreats to a position of agnosticism.
I would argue that there are in fact actual atheists out there who make the robust claim that God affirmatively does not exist. These are the people we might rightful call atheists. But this is quite a different beast altogether.
If you feel as Siuil does, that the robust atheist "can't ever know" what he claims to know, then this belief makes you, by definition, an agnostic. If you have a problem with this, I would suggest you take it up with Noah Webster (or Samuel Johnson for my agnostic friends across the pond)
QED, have a nice day:) -
It's only technical agnosticism. Our actions often imply a belief that god does not exist, rather than a lack of belief that god exists, but technically we fall under the latter.
Most people I've met who willingly identify as agnostic are people who have not looked at the evidence and decided that there is or is not a god. In most extreme cases, you have 50/50 agnostics who think it's likely true or false in equal probabilities, with no evidence lending more support for one side than the other.
A 50/50 agnostic and a 99.9999/0.0001 agnostic are quite different, both in behavior and in mindset. Using the same word for both is like calling a 50/50 bisexual and a 99.9999/0.0001 bisexual person both bisexual, where the latter would be considered "straight" by most standards.
-
-
"If a person has a core belief that meets the definition of "agnostic"...
Here you're putting words into my mouth. I have no such core belief. My belief is that God does not exist and that is the belief I live by; however, I have no irrefutable knowledge or evidence to support it. My position mirrors that of the person who believes in God and likewise has no irrefutable knowledge or evidence to support it. Following your logic, all believers would be merely believers-of-convenience, in short, agnostics.-
Incorrect. A believer in God may have a subject experience of faith, this entitles one to 100% certainty. You are right NP, that if a believer follows VK's ridiculously arbitrary 99.x%, this qualifies by my logic as a believer of convenience, somebody who admits to a .0whatever% chance that there is no God is as much an agnostic (by definition) as somebody who admits to a .0whatever% chance that there is not.
I am certainly not trying to say that there aren't believers of convenience, there certainly are. But faith overcomes this gap. Thus a true believer believes in God 100%, just as a true agnostic disbelieves 100%. This is just a definitional thing, and whether you want to call it an atheist-of-convenience, believer of convenience or a "technical agnostic" or whatever, so be it, that's just semantics. The fact is all three of those terms describe agnosticism.
Moreover, there are true believers and true atheists out there who believe things with certainty. -
They are all agnosticism in different degrees, though. If you want to be absolutely technical, most people are agnostic bisexual centrists. The purpose of labels is to differentiate and distinguish opposing beliefs or behaviors. Therefore, pigeonholing everyone as agnostic is not conducive to maintaining a clear and concise understanding of where someone lies based on the labels or categories alone.
-
Diabolicomix: I don't know how you can equate faith or belief or any subjective experience with certainty. But if you're happy with that argument, that's fine with me. I really have no ax to grind.
-
-
I am agnostic but have used the term athiest depending on weather I am in the mood to be bugged. I used to be religious so when I would see an agnostic, I would think oh, they're easier to deal with. Many people share that misconception and so if I am not in the mood to be bothered by religious types I say athiest because that to me (when I was religious) meant 100% close minded and a waste of time to convert... and it works. When I say agnostic people try to sway me, when I say athiest they don't. I know the proper definitions however common use is different and serves a purpose. -
There are also those of us who believe that "God" is a benevolent creative force, rather than a vengeful adolescent as described in the Bible-
And they are called deists, because no benevolent creative force could possibly have a hand in matters today.
-
the order of the red hand
-
Hand or paw?
-
ha ha. true, true... and true
-
-
An agnostic is also an atheist because they too, lack belief in a god. To be an atheist, you don't have to "know" a god doesn't exist, you can't "know" because it is not falsifiable. Atheism is more than anything, a response to the theist claim that a god exist. Particularly a rejection of the claim that a god exist or absence of belief in it, or disbelief in it. Agnostics don't necessarily believe in a god so they are also atheist. Just because the consider the possibility does not mean they are not atheists.-
good point..
what the general public calls agnostics are really agnostic atheists..
Theism/Atheism is a matter of belief while gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of a claim of knowledge..
There certainly are agnostic theists as well as gnostic Theists(whom we simply refer to as Theists) -
Indeed, you can't prove a negative. I don't understand the OP's argument that atheism has some sort of meaning and people who use it differently are somehow subsuming his "beliefs". It's a word, and like any other it can be used differently by various groups. How does SV's use of the word in any way affect diabolicomix's firm belief in the absence of a deity? They have the same basis, except that SV admits the possibility of being mistaken and dc does not (at least, not in this thread). I don't see how the "meaning" of atheism is in any way depleted by such an admission.
-
Did I every tell anybody on this forum what I believe with respect to the existence of a deity? Funny, I don't recall having done that:) Point of fact, I haven't, won't and never will!
Listen guys, I have to make this quick because I'm supposed to be studying, but it's really simple. In fact it's binary:
Premise 1
agnostic: does not believe there is a deity, does not believe there is not a deity.
Premise 2
atheist: believes there is not a deity.
Conclusions
Agnostic does not equal atheist.
Thus Dsriharsha's "agnotic atheist" is an oxymoron. Q.E.D.
Call yourself whatever you like, it's fine with me! But I demand more rigor from my terminology than mere conversational convenience, which seems to be at the root of all this misunderstanding. I don't think calling an agnostic for what he or she is (an agnostic) is somehow detracting in any way for any hostility that agnostic might have towards particular religions. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs and to call themselves what they like.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you have every right to call it a "chicken," morgantj, dsriharsha and legbamel, but please don't try to argue with me that it's a chicken, because I'm going just going to call it what it is! A duck!! -
@diabolicomix.. your premises are flawed
Premise 1
agnostic: does not believe there is a deity, does not believe there is not a deity.
Wrong.. agnostic merely makes a claim of knowledge, not of belief. Agnostic Atheists do not believe in a deity. Agnostic Theists believe in a deity.
Premise 2
atheist: believes there is not a deity.
Common denominator for Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. Strong Atheists on top of that, believe there is no deity. There is a difference in both the statements.
Conclusions
Agnostic does not equal atheist.
Agree.. An agnostic can still have a belief or not have a belief. That is a different matter.
Thus Dsriharsha's "agnotic atheist" is an oxymoron. Q.E.D.
Quot Erad NON Demonstratum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist
Call yourself whatever you like, it's fine with me!
Thats generous of you.
But I demand more rigor from my terminology than mere conversational convenience, which seems to be at the root of all this misunderstanding.
Then try to understand the terminology beforewriting it off as Oxymoronic.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you have every right to call it a "chicken," morgantj, dsriharsha and legbamel, but please don't try to argue with me that it's a chicken, because I'm going just going to call it what it is! A duck!!
I am not calling it a chicken. I am calling it a duck.
You on the other hand are merely calling it a "bird" which is acceptable too, but you are not clarifying what type of bird it is. -
Let's all get our terminology straight indeed.
Please see the wikipedia entry on "Weak atheism." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
To wit:
"Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny further distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all talk of gods to be meaningless."
I like the whole weak/strong atheist distinction, but unless you feel like appending weak every time, it's much simpler to refer to agnostic weak atheists as simply "agnostics" (or theological noncognitivist weak atheists for that matter, I do not see a meaningful distinction between the two), so as not to confuse with actual atheists (who do not require the appended qualifier of "agnosticism").
Going back to the duck analogy, it is you, dsriharsha, who is calling it a "bird."
So if atheism is the genus, we have a genus atheist species atheist (strong atheism) and a genus atheist species agnostic (weak atheist). Agnostic is the most important part, as it differentiates it from the prima facie meaning of a-theism. So back to the original question that started the whole topic, why try so hard to side-step this important distinction and lump agnostics and atheists together?
Let's all have fun calling ourselves whatever we please, but at the end of the day we ought not be resistant to a true accounting of facts. -
the whole point of this discussion is because you stated in your OP that agnostics were fooling themselves by self referring as Atheists which is clearly not the case.. The chance left is because of the knowledge.. as long as a person has no belief in a Deity, he/she is an Atheist. He need not profess a 100% belief in the non existence of deity to be an Atheist. That is where you are drawing wrong premises and wrong conclusions.
As for your reply.. (A)gnosticism and (A)Theism are concepts which are not the case that one is the subset of the other. They are different concepts which do overlap.
Agnosticism is not the subset of Atheism, as clearly Agnostic Theists exist as well. -
The whole point of my original post is that a number of Agnostic-Atheists, including yourself, speak as if they are Strong Atheists or as if no distinction exists, but when pressed in argument retreat to a position of Agnostic Atheism (likely-there-isn't). You are right that there is Agnostic Theism (likely-there-is), and there is Atheistic Religion as well... but none of these is what we mean when we speak of "Atheism" (there-just-isn't). Agnosticism in both its varieties doesn't have a means of justification, whereas Theism and Atheism do appeal to some means of justification. Big difference!
Intellectual honesty requires that an adherent of atheistic agnosticism to admit to the possibility of the existence of deity. I think what this whole conversation has clearly demonstrated is that with respect to one of the questions posed in the original post (is it just shorthand?) the answer is yes, it is just for convenience's sake that the so-called weak atheists forget the word "weak" most of the time.
-
-
I think there are basically two kinds of agnostics:
1) The wishy washy kind, who don't like to think about that kinda stuff ("well, y'know, the fundamentalist Christians might be right, and the Zen Buddhists might be right, and Charles Manson might be right...).
2) The kind who've thought enough about that kinda stuff that they're decided that not only don't they understand the mysteries of the universe, neither does anybody else--thus, open to the possibility of a higher whatever, but basically rejecting all religious beliefs, as well as atheism.
And, yeah, I'd say that, if they don't have the time or inclination for a long explanation, the second type usually find it easier to just call themselves atheists when talking to religious believers. -
I don't "believe" the theist claim that there is a god. That is enough to be labeled an atheist. I don't "believe" there is a god because among other things I find the probability of there being a god extremely low. It is not intellectually dishonest. One cannot "know" something doesn't exist, it is not falsifiable. To be an atheist, all it takes is not "believing" the theist claim that a god exist.
-
Words are defined and re-defined. Here's from my desktop Webster's:
agnostic - one who holds that we know nothing of things outside the material world.
atheisism - disbelief in the existence of God.
theism - belief in divine creation of the universe without denial of revelation.
I have long defined myself as an agnostic. Looking at the definitions here, it is one I retain.-
But how do you know there are "things" outside of the material world to not know in the first place?
-
@morgantj - I just said: I know NOTHING about such.
-
But one cannot " 'know' nothing." "Knowing" can only be applied to "something." Agnosticism is to be "without" knowledge. Not with it. So I think it would be more accurate to say that an agnostic is one who holds that one cannot know of things outside the material world.
I think the semantic differences are crucial here.
Furthermore, If one cannot know of things outside of the material world, then what reason is there to believe there is anything outside of the material world to not know of to begin with.
-
-
I think the definition of the word atheist is subject to interpretation judging by all of this chatter. My self I don't believe there is some white guy with a beard or any other human looking dude sitting on a cloud playing let's mess with the peeps on the round blue ball.
I believe there is a lot of energy in the universe, is that GOD????
Am I an atheist??? Personally I don't like labels, but most of the time I call myself a heathen. -
I know an atheist who believes in the law of attraction, which strikes me as odd. Is she really an atheist? She certainly does not believe in God, but she still accepts something unproven by science. What about UFOs? Can an atheist believe in aliens? Is atheism only about God? -
So much here revolves around the concept of belief.
Somewhat off topic, but still relevant, I think - evolutionary biologists have largely dropped the term "belief" from any policy statements and have used the word "accept" instead.
Saying "I believe/do not believe" invokes the possibility for pretty much anything.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
