Are all agnostics automatically atheists?

[bigfield]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

 

[J842P]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

Agnosticism describes the knowledge claims of a person. One can believe in something without claiming to have the knowledge of it.

So no, an agnostic is not automatically (i.e. by logical necessity) an atheist.

 

[Juma]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

Agnosticism describes the knowledge claims of a person. One can believe in something without claiming to have the knowledge of it.

Then agnosticism is the ridiculous claim that "i believe in this but I do not think it can ever to be established as true or not"?

 

[J842P]

Agnosticism describes the knowledge claims of a person. One can believe in something without claiming to have the knowledge of it.

Then agnosticism is the ridiculous claim that "i believe in this but I do not think it can ever to be established as true or not"?

No, agnosticism is the claim that "I do not have knowledge of X proposition" or more strongly "I do not think it is possible to have any knowledge about X proposition." It has nothing to do with belief.

 

[Juma]

Then agnosticism is the ridiculous claim that "i believe in this but I do not think it can ever to be established as true or not"?

No, agnosticism is the claim that "I do not have knowledge of X proposition" or more strongly "I do not think it is possible to have any knowledge about X proposition." It has nothing to do with belief.

the stance I described is the result of non- atheism and agnosticism. (That is the context of this thread)

 

[J842P]

No, agnosticism is the claim that "I do not have knowledge of X proposition" or more strongly "I do not think it is possible to have any knowledge about X proposition." It has nothing to do with belief.

the stance I described is the result of non- atheism and agnosticism.

Then yes, the stance you described could be said to be agnostic theism.

 

[bilby]

Gnostic Atheism - I know that there are no Gods.
Agnostic Atheism - I believe that there are no Gods.
Gnostic Theism - I know that there is at least one God
Agnostic Theism - I believe that there is at least one God.

Theism-Atheism is orthogonal to Gnosticism-Agnosticism.

All four are perfectly valid positions, given an appropriate set of premises; whether they are also sound depends on the truth of the premises themselves, and whether they are reasonable depends on the degree to which the premises conform to observed reality.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the statement 'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'; it certainly beats the more common theist position of cognitive dissonance, or 'I believe this to be true despite being aware that it is impossible', also expressed as 'God moves in mysterious ways' or 'It's a miracle'.

I believe that there is intelligent life in other galaxies; while the truth of this could be determined in principle, there is no way to prove it in practice, and I expect this belief to remain unproven at least for the duration of my lifetime. As such, I am an agnostic believer in intelligent extraterrestrial life.

For the vast majority of definitions of 'God', I am a gnostic atheist; I am satisfied that not only do such things not exist, they are demonstrably impossible. There are a small number of very weak 'definitions' of God that are not demonstrably false; for those 'Gods' I am an agnostic atheist, in that I am pretty sure that they don't exist either - or that in those cases where they do exist, that they are not qualified for the name 'God'.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Every agnostic I've seen has perpetuated a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

 

[gmbteach]

As someone still struggling with this thought, I think Bilby summed it up very well.

 

[bigfield]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the statement 'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'; it certainly beats the more common theist position of cognitive dissonance, or 'I believe this to be true despite being aware that it is impossible', also expressed as 'God moves in mysterious ways' or 'It's a miracle'.

'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'

What is the meaning of the verb 'believe' in this context? Belief, as I understand it, is the acceptance of something as true.

Is it just another way of saying 'god probably exists, but I can not be 100% certain'?

 

[Wiploc]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

You may be confusing two different naming systems. Some people say all non-believers are atheists, but those aren't the same people who say that agnostics don't believe in gods.

Old system:
Atheists believe gods don't exist.
Theists believe gods do exist.
Agnostics don't believe either way.

New system:
Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.
Theists believe gods do exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way.
Agnostics may believe one way or the other, but they don't know.

So, in the new system, all nonbelievers are atheists; and in the old system, agnostics are non-believers. If you mix the systems, you just cause confusion.


===

Then agnosticism is the ridiculous claim that "i believe in this but I do not think it can ever to be established as true or not"?

Agnosticism is not knowing. There's nothing ridiculous about not knowing something unless in circumstances where you should know.

My mom's a Christian who once said, "I struggle with my faith every day." So, she's not a gnostic theist. I'm a strong atheist who believes that there are no gods. I can prove that some of them don't exist, but I don't see any way to prove that no gods exist. So I'm not gnostic either.

I don't see why you would call either of these positions "ridiculous." There are lots of things you believe that you don't know. That's part of the human condition.

If your claim is that we shouldn't believe in anything we don't know for sure, well, that's ridiculous.



===

Every agnostic I've seen has perpetuated a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. How do I perpetuate misunderstanding?

As someone still struggling with this thought, I think Bilby summed it up very well.

Yes, agreed!


===

'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'

What is the meaning of the verb 'believe' in this context? Belief, as I understand it, is the acceptance of something as true.

It's just the regular normal English-language use of "believe" and "know." You can believe something on less evidence than you can know it. Here's dictionary.com:

Believe: "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so."

Know: "to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"

That's not confusing. One can believe without certainty. One cannot know without belief.

Is it just another way of saying 'god probably exists, but I can not be 100% certain'?

No. You're confusing the state of mind (belief) with the justification for the state of mind (god probably exists). It might help if you think of someone with an irrational belief ("It's been sixteen days since the cave-in, and they have no food or water down there, but I believe they're still alive!").

 

[bilby]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the statement 'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'; it certainly beats the more common theist position of cognitive dissonance, or 'I believe this to be true despite being aware that it is impossible', also expressed as 'God moves in mysterious ways' or 'It's a miracle'.

'I believe in this, but do not think it can ever be established as true or not'

What is the meaning of the verb 'believe' in this context? Belief, as I understand it, is the acceptance of something as true.

Is it just another way of saying 'god probably exists, but I can not be 100% certain'?

Pretty much.

Very few people are totally incapable of answering the question 'do you think that there is a god' with either 'yes' or 'no'. 'I'm not sure' is not a way of avoiding the 'yes' or 'no' response; it is a qualifier for the response.

Imagine there is a really crap game-show* with a bag containing a coloured ball; you, the contestant, are asked if you think that the ball is red. Get the answer right, and you win a car! So the host asks, "Is the ball in the bag red"?

In that situation, some people might say 'yes', and some might say 'no'; but few, if any, would say 'I don't know' - it is quite possibly a true statement, but it is, nevertheless, irrelevant to your choice; You are being asked to pick one or the other. The answer you pick - Yes or No - is analogous to Theism or Atheism.

Now the host has your answer - you think the ball is NOT red! (audience gasps). The host puts his arm around you in that truly annoying way game-show hosts have, and says "How sure are you that you made the right choice?". This is a different question to the one he just asked. Now, you might be 100% certain - perhaps you saw the ball being put in the bag; or maybe you know that there is only one red ball, and the previous contestant had it in his bag. Or you might have no idea whether or not the ball is red, and have nothing to base your guess upon, so you flipped a coin. But that doesn't have any effect on the fact that you made a choice; only on how confident you are that you made the correct choice.

Is there a God? Get the answer right, and win a car! Being agnostic is not an alternative to choosing - it is a comment on the degree of certainty in your choice, once made.






Endemol entertainment, please note that I reserve all rights to this concept.

 

[bigfield]

Wiploc and Bilby,

Cheers, that makes more sense. I was going by the 'old' definition of agnosticism.

 

[Juma]

Agnosticism is not knowing. There's nothing ridiculous about not knowing something unless in circumstances where you should know.

My mom's a Christian who once said, "I struggle with my faith every day." So, she's not a gnostic theist. I'm a strong atheist who believes that there are no gods. I can prove that some of them don't exist, but I don't see any way to prove that no gods exist. So I'm not gnostic either.

I don't see why you would call either of these positions "ridiculous."

Believing in something that has nothing to it is ridiculous.

There are lots of things you believe that you don't know.

Eh. No. The problem here is that you mix multiple different meanings of "know" and "believe".

There is not just "belief"/"knowledge", you really have "unjustified belief" and "justified belief".

The philosophical definition of knowledge as "true belief" is not usable in this context.

Either there is something that more or less justifies your belief or not.

Agnosticism + theism = totally unjustified belief and thus ridiculous.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No. One can be agnostic about God but believe in God. This is called fideism.

Google fideism for more.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. How do I perpetuate misunderstanding?

I mean the agnostics who claim they are agnostics and not atheists.

 

[Underseer]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

That depends on which definition of "agnostic" you are using.

If you are using the more formal definition of agnostic, then any theist who admits that he cannot prove any of his claims in the 100% certainty sense is an agnostic theist. If you are using the informal definition of agnostic, then anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist.

 

[funinspace]

Fun stuff...atheist-agnostic semantic debate thread #797...

This is why I have the following in my Profile: functional atheist; theoretical agnostic

 

[Juma]

If someone who does not believe in any gods is an atheist, and agnostics do not believe in any gods, then aren't agnostics also atheists?

That depends on which definition of "agnostic" you are using.

If you are using the more formal definition of agnostic, then any theist who admits that he cannot prove any of his claims in the 100% certainty sense is an agnostic theist.

You got it wrong: agnosticism is not "not 100% knowledge". It is "0% knowledge".
Agnosticism is thinking god is unknowable.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Fun stuff...atheist-agnostic semantic debate thread #797...

This is why I have the following in my Profile: functional atheist; theoretical agnostic

When a large number of people misunderstand a word that means we should have an argument about the semantics.