• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are all agnostics automatically atheists?

funinspace said:
Fun stuff...atheist-agnostic semantic debate thread #797...

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

Bertrand Russell used to change how he identified himself depending on his audience: For a technical audience, he called himself an agnostic. For a lay audience (so they'd understand that he didn't think Jehovah any more likely than Thor) he called himself an atheist.
 
Juma said:
Agnosticism is thinking god is unknowable.
Click to expand...

If you use that label for that category, then what are you going to call the rest of the people who don't know?

- Agnostics: Gods are unknowable.
- Semi-agnostics: I don't know whether gods are knowable.
- Semi-demi-agnostics: Gods are probably knowable, but I don't happen to myself.
- Semi-demi-hemi-agnostics: I'm only on chapter one of this religion text, so I don't know anything hardly. By the time I finish the book, I'll know the answer for sure.
 
bigfield said:
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?
Click to expand...

The term would be Nontheist.

This umbrella term would encompass not only atheists and agnostics, but also Therevada and Western Buddhists and some Neopagans.
 
Juma said:
Underseer said:
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.
Click to expand...
You got it wrong: agnosticism is not "not 100% knowledge". It is "0% knowledge".
Agnosticism is thinking god is unknowable.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Atheism and theism are answers to the question "Do any gods exist?" while agnosticism is an answer to a completely different question "What is knowable?" If you accept that we can't know anything with 100% certainty, then you're an agnostic regardless of how you answer the question of gods.
 
Underseer said:
Juma said:
You got it wrong: agnosticism is not "not 100% knowledge". It is "0% knowledge".
Agnosticism is thinking god is unknowable.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Atheism and theism are answers to the question "Do any gods exist?" while agnosticism is an answer to a completely different question "What is knowable?" If you accept that we can't know anything with 100% certainty, then you're an agnostic regardless of how you answer the question of gods.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, in our society, people consider there are three positions regarding the deity, and by extension, religion: theism, agnosticism, atheism --in that order, representing "degrees of belief" or of certainty.

Let's not forget that in linguistics, we have not only one focus (semantics), but three: semantics, pragmatics and syntax (but we can ignore the third in the present context). So, what how the vulgus uses the word is important to this discussion. It is noteworthy that the vulgus is some "other" out there, the "uninitiated" or "uncouth" --it is used that way here too.

Also, if an agnostoic says "It can't be known", there is actually a tacit position "Don't ask me, I do not know".
And if an atheist says "God doesn't exist", there is an implied gnostic position: "I know--there is no deity".
So, in actual use, they are equivalent.

That being said, there are two kinds of agnostics, with regards to their lifestyles, and allow me to use a word pope Ratzinger has used: practical atheism. I, for example, am such an agnostic, I live as though the deity (version busybody deity 1.1) did not exist, and am therefore a practical atheist, I am a "agnostic atheist" (which by implication also means "weak/negative atheism"), and there are "agnostic theists", who participate in religion, some of which even have "faith" but are philosophically literate enough to know they have no way of knowing and/or that faith implies not knowing (within some hard definition of knowledge).

It's also noteworthy that most Christians say they "believe in God", and can add in the same breath that they have faith, hope and trust in order to keep their Christian path. That is, in ultimate analysis, absurd. They do not "believe in God" if they have faith, unless what they are betraying their own defense mechanism which allows them to sleep at night, so to speak.
 
Underseer said:
If you accept that we can't know anything with 100% certainty, then you're an agnostic regardless of how you answer the question of gods.
Click to expand...
No. Agnosticism is that you cannot have any knowledge of god. The negation of agnosticism is that you can have some knowledge about god.
 
Perspicuo said:
Nevertheless, in our society, people consider there are three positions regarding the deity, and by extension, religion: theism, agnosticism, atheism
Click to expand...

That's the old system.
- Theism: believing that gods exist.
- Atheism: believing that gods don't exist.
- Agnosticism: not believing either way.



--in that order, representing "degrees of belief" or of certainty.
Click to expand...

That's inconsistent with the system you've invoked. Theism/atheism/agnosticism is about what or whether you believe. It has nothing to do with certainty or strength of belief.



...
Also, if an agnostoic says "It can't be known", there is actually a tacit position "Don't ask me, I do not know".
Click to expand...

That doesn't work either. "Strong agnostic" is the name for the people you're describing. They don't just say, "I don't know," but are likely to add, "And you don't know either. Nobody knows because gods are not knowable!"

Strong agnostics tend to the militant. They often believe that theirs is the only logical position. And, since it's the only logical position, they like to defend it. They enjoy telling other people how wrong they are.

So, "Don't ask me," isn't something you're likely to hear from a strong agnostic.



And if an atheist says "God doesn't exist", there is an implied gnostic position: "I know--there is no deity".
Click to expand...

What about the atheists who don't say that god doesn't exist. I'm careful enough in my speech, that I'm usually going to say, "I believe that gods don't exist." That isn't a knowledge claim.

And even if there are atheists who state their position as, "God doesn't exist," that doesn't mean they are making a knowledge claim.

Those who want to make a knowledge claim are likely to say that they know gods don't exist. There's no reason for you to assume that atheists don't know how to make knowledge claims when we want to.



So, in actual use, they are equivalent.
Click to expand...

That's nuts. Your claim is that every non-theist is a gnostic strong atheist? How would that work? No non-theist can have doubt?

You cannot defend that position.



That being said, there are two kinds of agnostics, with regards to their lifestyles, and allow me to use a word pope Ratzinger has used: practical atheism. I, for example, am such an agnostic, I live as though the deity (version busybody deity 1.1) did not exist, and am therefore a practical atheist, I am a "agnostic atheist" (which by implication also means "weak/negative atheism"),
Click to expand...

Weak atheism? So now you're using the new system:
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.
- Weak atheists don't believe either way.

Under this system, "agnostic atheist" refers to anyone who both doesn't know whether gods exist and doesn't have a belief that gods exist.

I, for instance, am an agnostic strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist, but I don't know it for sure.

So don't be saying that I'm a weak atheist just because I'm an atheist who is agnostic.

And that's a pretty silly thing to say anyway, since you were just arguing that all atheists and agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists. (You said there is no difference between them because they all claim to know that gods don't exist.)



and there are "agnostic theists", who participate in religion, some of which even have "faith" but are philosophically literate enough to know they have no way of knowing and/or that faith implies not knowing (within some hard definition of knowledge).
Click to expand...

So theists get to be philosophically literate, but non-theists have to claim to know that gods don't exist? Why would you make such a claim? And why would you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists just before reversing yourself to admit that some agnostics are theists?



It's also noteworthy that most Christians say they "believe in God", and can add in the same breath that they have faith, hope and trust in order to keep their Christian path. That is, in ultimate analysis, absurd. They do not "believe in God" if they have faith, unless what they are betraying their own defense mechanism which allows them to sleep at night, so to speak.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out what your point is here. Where is the conflict between believing in something and having faith in it?
 
So theists get to be philosophically literate, but non-theists have to claim to know that gods don't exist? Why would you make such a claim? And why would you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists just before reversing yourself to admit that some agnostics are theists?
Click to expand...

This is like the core of everything you get wrong. I agree with you that these things are absurd. The key thing is, I didn't say any of them, you just made them up. Some of which, such as "you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists" is nothing less than spectacular.
 
Perspicuo said:
So theists get to be philosophically literate, but non-theists have to claim to know that gods don't exist? Why would you make such a claim? And why would you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists just before reversing yourself to admit that some agnostics are theists?
Click to expand...

This is like the core of everything you get wrong. I agree with you that these things are absurd. The key thing is, I didn't say any of them, you just made them up. Some of which, such as "you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists" is nothing less than spectacular.
Click to expand...

Well.... Okay then. On the one hand, I'm sorry to learn that I was off base. On the other hand, I'm glad that my interpretation was incorrect, because you really seemed to me wildly wrong and inconsistent.

I hope your disavowal is not based on my using new-style terminology (theist/strong atheist/weak atheist) terminology where use used old-style (theist/atheist/agnostic) terminology.

I apologize for any misrepresentation. I assure you that any misrepresentation was unintentional.

I don't intend to ask for my post to be deleted, because I think it is still useful and informative for anyone who gives your post the same interpretation as I did. (That still seems to me the obvious and straightforward interpretation. I take your word for it that I misunderstood your intent, but I have no idea of where that misunderstanding occurred.)
 
The only reason I can see to be agnostic is because you think that stories about gods have some privileged status over stories about other hypothetical beings.

But the only reason I can see to think that is if you believe gods exist. Otherwise it's just another name, or set of names, in a book.

So for me agnosticism is just theism in a mask. It's people pretending to be rational who can't let go of the idea that God is somehow special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom