I disagree with the conclusion that atheism=agnosticism.

The argument has been made here that some embrace agnosticism because it may be less threatening towards some theists. I reject the argument made here that agnostic can only be used as a modifier.

The problem, as I see it, is the need for some to put people in boxes with clearly defined labels. Like other things in life, there are those on both ends of a spectrum, but many in between. Those people may embrace some sort of spirituality or may have come to believe in something larger than they are, but don't necessarily attach that to a god or gods.

Many may answer the question of whether they are a theist or atheist as neither.

I've always thought it meant "don't know". To my mind, a lot of atheists I've known in my life are just as dogmatic in their denial as the "others" are in theirs. They say "there is no god, period" which I am inclined to believe but I know that I can never really know.

Moreover, I don't really care if there is a god/gods. All i know is I am a kind, loving and generous person who treats all people with respect. Not because I'm scared of going to hell, but because that's what feels right.

Especially about behaving in a socially responsible and loving manner without having to fear punishment. I can't stand the idea that I can't be a moral person without a vengeful God watching everything I do.

I'm also agnostic, although I'm an avid church goer. I absolutely adore my liberal Episcopal church and would attend if I were a committed atheist. I'm absolutely welcome there, and more than one other person has also told me they feel they're agnostic.

I tell people that being an agnostic isn't a polite way of being an atheist. it's not a middle ground or a compromise but the conviction that I can't know if there's a deity or not.

I guess that's not what Huxley meant, but it works for me.

So nice to see you and thanks so much for this thoughtful post.

I don't call or consider myself agnostic and wish there was a "third party". I don't think about it or care about it. I am a good person because that's who I am and my parents raised me well. It seems both atheist and agnostic involve some active consideration of the subject. I have none. Don't spend anytime thinking about it.

If it meant "don't know" then you would be saying your philosophical position is literally "I dunno". a.k.a "I am ignorant on this topic".

You can be ignorant on a topic. I'm ignorant of countless topics as are all other people on the planet. But a state of ignorance is not an "ism" to be staked out as a philosophical position. It's just ignorance.

Agnostic means "without knowledge" and has nothing to do with can or can not.

And yes, it does mean "I am ignorant on this topic", a perfectly logical position when something is unknowable.

It is a legitimate -ism, imo.

Lots of people have knowledge about molecular cell biology and swahili, even if you don't.

OTOH, I am of the opinion that no one knows whether there is a god or gods of not. You can read as many books as you like, and I will maintain that you still don't know.

However, you can believe. You can believe there is a god or believe that there is no god. To not take either position is completely valid, imo.

If one's philosophical position is that they are neither theist nor atheist but they are agnostic, that's just fine with me. My experience has been that those that think you must be theist or atheist are most interested in having you sign up for a team.

(since we agree on that), then make your comparison. Saying you do not know something that lots of other people do know is just not a good comparison.

No need to be so condescending. Everything you are posting here is just your opinion. You do not have the answers and neither do I.

The lack of adoption of a belief in god does not equal atheism. I disagree with your position. Agnostic is not just a modifier. It is a position.

In fact, it is a position that more and more people wish to take, imo. Partly, I think, because they do not wish to be associated with either group, their putative leaders or their baggage. Sometimes because they are highly resistant to being labeled as part of an effort to be placed on a team.

And sometimes they take it because they do believe that there is probably something greater than themselves, but they don't know what it is and don't know whether god would be the right term.

Black and white thinking about theism (e.g. you must be a theist or atheist) is old school and dying, imo. But it continues to be a debate point widely used by some who see this as a team sport, with winners and losers.

I am completely ignorant of the existence of an orbiting teapot circling a planet in a solar system 100 light years from here.

Nobody knows if there is one or can go find out if I ask them to. This I can pretty much guarantee.

Not knowing does not make me or anyone else AGNOSTIC about it. It just means I don't freaking know. Comparison done. Not that that comparison is different in one single way form the comparisons I already performed so thanks for requesting I waste my time.

"The lack of adoption of a belief in god does not equal atheism. I disagree with your position. "

in a circling teapot. Again, this is not a relevant comparison.

Lack of adoption in a belief does not equal disbelief.

Please. You no longer need to waste your time on someone who is not paying attention and can't read a dictionary.

Because I am done here.

See you around the campfire.

...does the number of people who do or do not belive in something have to do with the *LOGICAL DEFINITION* of a term?

Lack of adoption in a belief does not equal disbelief.

She, and those in here that share her POV, employ this tactic so that they cannot be held to any particular standard.

Every response is ambiguous. Purposefully. It is no wonder rational discourse fails here so often.

They accomplish nothing but the initiation of chair throwing.

I call myself am atheist because I feel strongly that the evidence for any gods is severely lacking. Another person who believes the same thing may call themself an agnostic. That's fine with me. Call yourself what you want. I know what you mean when you call yourself an agnostic. I have zero problems with it. Zero!

Basically, it means the basically same thing I mean when I call myself an atheist. And let's agree to not quibble about this non-distinction by splitting hairs and digging out the OED.

And I do not care what you think about people who call themselves atheist. However, if you are going to use atheist as an epithet, I am going to have a problem with your opinion.

Atheism means I do not believe there are gods, nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean I am sure of that gods do not exist. It does not mean I could not be convinced they do. It merely states where I consider the current state of the evidence. Nothing more, and nothing less.

IMHO, it has always been a rather silly argument anyway.

I love my agnostic, atheist, spiritual, deist, etc. brethren regardless what they call themselves. Indeed, many call themselves Catholics, Hindus, Protestants, etc. I have no problem with them either as long as they keep their beliefs out of the laws of our government.

For me, it is really simple. But when asked, I always say I am an atheist.

When some atheists try to say "being an agnostic is just being an atheist without guts..to quote Madalyn Murray O' Hare

http://www.atheisms.info/atheisms/ohairag.html

especially when she spouts BS like this:

"The reason is that agnosticism, which puts forward the false notion that the world is unknowable, undermines science and reinforces theology. "

To state that the world is unknowable is NOT the same as admitting there is a God, indeed, it undermines the idea as what religion seeks is to say the world can be known.

To give examples and contrasts, this is a rather benign, polite reply which still is angry at agnostics.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-I-m-not-atheist-I-m-agnostic

And part of the reason the religion topics become donnybrooks is because SOME atheists, note I say some, take the O hair route, where if we do not agree with their definition of things, we get stomped on.

If I wanted to submit to dogma, I would be a Catholic.

... and to be clear *I* am an agnostic... but the way the majority of self identified "agnostics" I know use the term "being an agnostic is just being an atheist without guts" is *exactly* what being an "agnostic" means. The *clear* majority of all people I have ever encountered who call themselves agnostics do not use the term properly to mean that they believe that the nature of God, as that entity is defined, renders absolute knowledge about whether it exists or not impossible to attain (which is a *completely separate question* from whether or not you believe such an entity exists). If they were using the term that way it would be fine, and that quote would be nonsense.


However I would say in my own experience at least 8 out of every 10 "agnostics" I encounter use it to mean "I am neither a theist nor an atheist, I am somehow nobly "neutral" and not taking sides in this silly bickering". Which is bullshit since every person on the planet either does (theist) or does not (atheist) possess a belief that a deity exists. Binary solution set. You are one or the other regardless of whether you also happen to be an agnostic. And the vast majority of that vast majority who use the term that way clearly do not believe in God when pressed on the issue, they just won't identify with it because they want to avoid the discussion. The definition of "agnostic" they attempt to use is purely irrational and dishonest.

If I were to extend the full benefit of the doubt I would accept that it is possible for a person to be, temporarily, in a state of uncertainty about the *content of their own damn thoughts* and actually really not know *if they believe* God exists. But that is not a philosophical position, that is a state of confusion and ignorance. You do not slap an "ism" on it and stake it out as your philosophical ground. If that condition persists you aren't deep, you need counseling.

It's easier to be an "agnostic".

Quoting Huxley to do it in this forum is just SO original.

In the meantime you go right ahead and state my agenda.

Tell us what you think about it.

Tell us what you think my agenda is. Go on.

Do you even have an opinion on the subject or is it just more bait?

All the more egegious considering your only comment on the OP was an ominous insinuation about a poster not the post. Let's see, what definition does that fit?

It's entirely possible that you simply post them as a public service and we should all be grateful that you care so deeply about our issues.

Some require comment; some don't. I've never been shy about expressing myself - in an OP or in a thread.

Now you, on the other hand, make an insinuation, get called on it, attempt to divert, and end up rolling around the floor with a smiley.

Scintillating discussion on a topic. Well, if that's the best you've got, so be it.

Cheer up, maybe you'll find better bait tomorrow!

I don't know that a god or gods exist, so I don't have any beliefs pertaining to them.

Hence I'm an agnostic atheist.

From that they jump to "atheism is a religion", "atheism is a faith", etc.

What they refuse, or, more likely, are unable to do is define the god(s) that we're supposed to be rejecting.

It's hard to take you seriously otherwise.

I can tell you precisely why I don't like bagels if offered one. I don't otherwise walk around posting billboards that I don't like bagels.

I prefer neufchatel on my god.

No wonder you're confused.

Is that specific enough?

Bagels exist, nothing like a fresh pumpernickel right out of the oven!

Simple.

I won't reject a god until its nonexistence is proven.

I thought it was simple but maybe you're just not an it-getter.

I love clear thinking.

Some christians never learn to question everything, some are scared to and the rest become atheists.

You keep on believing in magic, rug.

It must be difficult.

I guess that's why you're so sensitive.

More so since you're far from high school.

Because we don't.

Sure doesn't stop you from trying though.

But, boy, you do indeed believe a bunch of stupid shit.

You did get the pointing part right.

It wouldn't be the first thing you couldn't control.

You stay classy.

You keep an eye on that jerking knee.

Some lines shouldn't be crossed.

Have a nice day.

Are you leaving this ludicrous subthread as you started it, with another unfounded insinuation?

Classy.

The belief in question being that magical deity figures exist.

And we don't adopt it because there's no evidence that compels us to.


What part of that is confusing you?

Your (plural) reasons are irrelevant. The result is the same.

What is the shibboleth about using the word reject?

I reject all sorts of things without the slightest confusion.

No kidding, reason was the first to go.
Then logic.
Dictionary definitions were next.
And so on.


One must know what something is before it can be rejected.

None of you believers have ever been able to prove your gods exist, hell, you can't even define them, so how can we reject something we have no knowledge of?

Speaking of poor logic skills, or maybe it's simply rank disingenuity, but are you seriously stating you have no conception of a god? Despite all your vitriol against the very thought of a god, any religion in the name of a god, and derision for those who believe in a god?
And that is the reason you reject the word "reject"?

I am a natural born atheist, I was never indoctrinated.

Now bagels are a different story. I would never reject a bagel.

It's aggravating and intolerant.

Ok.

If you go back in history to my rookie days in R/T, say around 2004-2005, you will find the same resentment.

The bit players in here come and go but I haven't changed.

Happens to me all the time.

That would be intolerant.

Pity you've never been gracious enough to respond in kind.

If you said you thought my lack of belief seemed completely irrational I would have no problem with that.

But you don't, you repeatedly tell me what I do and don't believe and then attack the strawmen you created.

It's about honesty, rug.

However, I never told you what to believe. I asked you to state it yourself.

From this thread alone:

You are suggesting some sort of action is necessary in order to *become* an atheist. And then demanding justification for taking that action.

That is nonsense. I do not believe God exists because nothing has ever instilled such a belief in me. The end. Just like I don't believe there are invisible gravity elves controlling the motion of planetary bodies, evil trolls lurking under every bridge I cross waiting to nab me, or interdimensional gremlins which emerge into my clothes dryer at random intervals to steal one of my socks.

I did not have to spend one single iota of time dwelling on any of these or the INFINITE number of other ridiculous mythological fairy tales one could dream up in order NOT to believe in them. You just don't, because nothing has ever given you a reason to.

Get it?

Now some atheists do spend a great deal of time considering the God issue and remain firmly planted in their lack of belief for it, but that isn't some kind of prerequisite for being an atheist.

ADOPTING a belief that such a thing exists however IS an active rather than a passive event and THAT requires justification.

Atheism is not simply disbelief, it is a specific disbelief, namely, that there is no god. The basis for that conclusion, whether it is based on lack of evidence or something else, is irrelevant. A person who calls himself or herself an atheist is not making a general declaration of disbelief but a particular declaration about the existence of a god.

It has nothing to do with active or passive. Whether you term it rejection or nonacceptance of the belief is immaterial. The declaration alone is the measure.

"Atheism is not simply disbelief, it is a specific disbelief,"

Yes it is.

Which changes not one damn word I just wrote. The three other examples I provided were also specific. Did you not notice that?

So, I take it you consider yourself an atrollist, an agremlinist and an anelvist in addition to an an atheist.

And since the issue of trolls, gremlins and gravity elves isn't one that comes up a lot I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to identify myself as lacking belief in them, just like I don't feel the need to point out to people that I don't believe in unicorns, mole people, or an evil galaxy spanning empire of super intelligent fungus that will eventually come to take over the earth and make us their slave gardeners.

If however it ever became necessary for some reason to make that clear to people then yes, I would be all of those things. Since so many people make possession of belief in a deity a prominent issue it is actually necessary to identify my position on that one.

Back to square one.

...I will instead set it aside. Let's say for the sake of argument that YES, ONCE presented with the idea of God I then reject it. (Actually I simply don't adopt it, remaining in the exact same state I always was, but whatever)


You are still only talking about a *subset* of atheists. The entirety of atheists includes ALL PEOPLE who DO NOT BELIEVE a deity exists. That includes people who have never been presented with the concept.

ATHEISM is not the rejection of the belief, it is the lack of possession of it.

You can argue until you fall over dead that SOME atheists also reject it. Go ahead. I don't care. It is not the rejection that defines atheism.

It could well be the result of thoughtful consideration.

No. The point, if you would care to refresh your memory by going back and reading how this started, was your claim that *atheism constituted a rejection of a specific belief*.

Since you can be an atheist without ever even encountering that belief, hence making it impossible that you have rejected it, you are wrong. The end.

The word atheism is meaningless without a notion of a theos. That is the root of the word. The prefix, a, without, simply modifies the core meaning.

"A gnosis" is the same principle, unless you say you have no concept of knowledge. If you say that, I could only agree.

You just wrote a reply that did not in any way alter or address a single thing I said.

I think we're done here, this is becoming a monumental waste of my time.

Even though rug has been told repeatedly that I lack belief in gods, he still insists on redefining my atheism.

Are they purposely obtuse or really that dense?

I find it amusing how rapidly you switch from the singular to the plural pronoun.

Nice.

You need to keep up, rug.

...someone on the internet who knows what those two words mean. It's a miracle!

Spans a lot of territory in that "I don't know what I don't know". While leaving the door open for more - whether it be religious, scientific, personal, political, whatever.

I mean, geez, I've no clue how to make Indian food. But I'm open and interested.

Seriously though, a spectrum in regards to religion resonates with me. And it doesn't have to be linear. I'm not this or that, or mid way on the train between Chicago and New York.

Sort of a rambling reply, but I liked the piece a lot and wanted to chime in.

the "spiritual but not religious" people. I think belief in Chakra, energy healing, and ghosts is a lot more irrational than a God. I am an atheist.

This rising demographic spans a wide variety of belief and non-belief systems. Some still consider themselves theists, others do not. What they often mean is that they are not affiliated with any organized religious group.

I meant people who firmly reject the idea of a God and believe in some kind of "life force".

Sometimes it's hard to draw a hard line between what most would consider woo and others would consider other kinds of spirituality.

I think I pretty much believe the same as my Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends. None of my friends who believe in a God can define that God. They can't say what form that God takes, how He performs his miracles, what happened before God, who made God, what God looks like. When you distill the essence of what they believe, it isn't that different to an atheist view of the world. A lot of unanswered questions - what happened before the Big Bang? Where did the matter come from that caused the big bang? - What happened before God? Where did God come from. The same questions and really both God and the Big Bang are metaphors for the same thing - how did thins all happen? We share a feeling that something so big and incredible happened to create all this - and a need to seek answers - the core feelings are the same. It is written into our DNA - the difference is that an atheist looks up and asks where did this all come from, and a theist personifies the answer with an inexplicable super-being that still doesn't provide the answers. Beyond God, there really isn't any difference.

Get a different hobby. Make model aeroplanes or something. Atheism won't go away because you seize any story you can find to show that - gasp! - atheists can do unpleasant things too - any more than religion will vanish because we are reduced to derisive laughter at the absurdity of it all.

What's the matter, mr blur? Does discussing it make you uncomfortable? Is it that you can only approach either topic with the reassurance of the "royal we" and the encouragement of giddy gallery laughter?

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]

does not believe in a humanoid god. That works for me and I have no need for additional labels to define my belief or lack of it. If others think they need, for some reason to define me further that may be their business, but it is none of mine.

Didn't see that coming.

As to others defining me, most of the time I could give a shit. It's only when they attack me based on their erroneous definitions that I care.

Thank you.

That is a funny, but boring example of how others define people based on their own issues. It is a choice to make your issues none of my business. It is not a matter of liking or not liking, but a matter of not being interested.

If you'd bothered to read any of the other posts in this thread, you'd realize that some of us have to fight constantly for the right to define ourselves in this forum full of ever-so-tolerant believers.

Thank you for your participation.