Atheism vs. Agnosticism

Post Reply New Topic

There are a lot of people around me that describe themselves as atheists. They claim they do not believe in a god-figure because of a lack of evidence of the existence of such a being. However, there is also a lack of evidence that there is not a god-figure, so by that logic, they cannot disbelieve a god-figure as well. Using that logic, it seems to be more accurate for these people to describe themselves as agnostics rather than atheists.

My sister describes herself as an atheist because of the fact that she does not want conversion-obsessed Christians trying to "win her back". They seem to think that agnostics are just Christians that have lost their way (her words, not mine), but atheists are "lost causes".

There is a very clear line of what makes an atheist an atheist (though many different ideas can fall into this label), and the term has been misused often by many (most unfortunately those that refer to themselves as such to rebel against their religious parents).

I was wondering what you guys here thought of atheism vs. agnosticism as well as other issues I've mentioned here.

I think there's so much epistemological and linguistic baggage and hair-splitting when it comes to the whole "atheist vs. agnostic" debate that it's much better to talk about theism to atheism as a scale of sorts, with hard theists at one end, hard atheists at another, and agnostic-neutralists in the middle.

Not all agnostics are the same, as well as not all atheists and all theists, which I pressume, the issue with the claim of christians who lost their way, that certainly can be the case with some of them, but not all, and I doubt it is for the majority. With christians, yes there are some cases in which a christian starts developing a "crisis of faith", which was my case.

Theists are not all the same in any manner of speaking, and then there are those that don't believe in a god-figure, but should also not be grouped with atheists (nihilists, for example, are far different than others who disbelieve in a god-figure because of their motives for doing so). Even describing oneself as an atheist is about as specific as describing oneself as a Christian. Atheist belief sets can be split up into many different groups.

Motives for agnosticism are very different from each other, too, and shouldn't really be all grouped together into one (it's a very inaccurate label).

I like Richard Dawkins' scale of 1 (completely convinced theist) to 7 (completely convinced atheist), with 4 being 50/50 not sure. I'm about a 5.5. I consider myself agnostic leaning toward atheism but not convinced. I also hate it when theists take my agnostic self-description as license to try to convert me....I'm probably LESS likely to be converted because I'm not a full-fledged atheist due to lack of proof, so why would I become a full-fledged theist with the same (or more significant) lack of proof?

~Kate

This is a logical fallacy. If the description of an agnostic is someone who lacks evidence to prove whether or not god/s exist then the entire human race is agnostic. Atheists do not require proof that there is no god, theists do not require proof that there is a god. The former group adheres to a philosophy of plausible doubt while the latter believes through faith.

It is also fair to say that there is strong evidence to suggest that the concept of 'God' as portrayed in the bible is incorrect. Science gives us a viable alternative to creation, for example. As the bible is supposedly the word of God, channeled through his servants on earth, it is sufficient to disprove a single passage to debunk Christianity. Atheism, however, is rather more bullet-proof.

Although I have many reasons for my atheism, one underlying reason for my disbelief is the portrayal of God in the bible as a petulant, vengeful egotist.

When you ask an Agnostic if God exists he will respond - I don't know

When you ask a strong Atheist if God exists he will respond - no, God does not exist.

When you ask weak Atheist if God exist he will respond - I don't know, but I do not believe God exists for there is no convincing evidence that God exists.

ruveyn

Most atheists ARE agnostics.

(A)theist - (Lack of) belief in god
(A)gnostic - (Lack of) knowledge

"Agnostic" by itself doesn't refer to ANY belief.
It's, in essence, "I don't claim to know", and nothing more.
It's not a convenient sitting post between theism and atheism.

Either one is a theist (believes in god) or an atheist (does not believe in god).
You really can't get around that.

Linguistics aside, as I pointed out, none of us lives in a digital world where something is either absolutely one thing or another. We exist in probabilities.

Almost. Weak atheism IS agnosticism. So it would look more like:

Agnostic (Weak) Atheist: I don't know if god exists, but I don't believe it does.
Gnostic (Strong) Atheist: God does not exist.

Agnostic Theist: I don't know if god exists, but I believe it does.
Gnostic Theist: God does exist.

Not sure what you were referring to. Atheism vs. theism is a true dichotomy.

I cannot say with any (scientific) certainty that God does or does not exist. Does that make me agnostic? Certainly not, because my BELIEF system is that I do have a "spiritual side" and strongly so. Due to the fact that I came very close to joining the Convent as a nun (a theological academic as part of the clergy) I have spent many years struggling with the notion that I MUST be sure either way(fiercely faithful, agnostic or atheistic). Either there is a GOD or there ISN'T, and because I cannot personally prove this, I made the decision not to join the Catholic Church in this way.

My leanings go towards Taoism which is more of a philosophy, than a religion, though some may disagree with me.

Mics

And possibilities. Sometimes we cannot assign a real number between 0 and 1 to a possibility.

ruveyn

Yo. (Edit Although you can, of course, be a philosophical Taoist rather than a religious Taoist)



I do not mean that we must have proof to believe one way to believe either way. What I mean is for those that demand proof of a god-figure's existence to believe in him, but use a different logic when considering the non-existence of a god-figure. I don't think it's wrong to believe in a god-figure, nor to disbelieve in a god-figure, but it seems to me to be a little inconstent for that particular motive.

And agnosticism can't really be said to be the same thing as atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in a god-figure (keep in mind that it doesn't have to be an actual god; the Tao or Bodhi can be considered god-figures), whereas agnosticism is uncertainty of their existence. There is quite a big difference between the two.

I don't believe that God exists, but I have a skeptical view of theism vs. atheism- We don't really know anything about whether there is or is not a God. Therefore I would describe myself as agnostic, as I believe that we don't know about God's existence, although I personally don't believe there's a God up there.

I Hope that makes sense.

"I don't believe that God exists, but I have a skeptical view of theism vs. atheism- We don't really know anything about whether there is or is not a God. Therefore I would describe myself as agnostic, as I believe that we don't know about God's existence, although I personally don't believe there's a God up there. "

That actually makes you an agnostic atheist. Which is what most atheists are, in actuality if you don't believe in any specific god such as Thor or Odin your an atheist in regards to that god. Unless you think you can know whether Thor really existed then you are also agnostic about Thor.

I have "met" thousands of atheists online and yet I have only met one guy who claimed he knew there was no god or gods, and I think he was just being a troll. Even Richard Dawkins is agnostic, of course hes agnostic on leprechauns too.

I know it seems picky to argue semantics sometimes but these words have meaning and they matter, when you confuse the words you confuse the meanings. If we all have different meanings for words we can't communicate properly. Atheism is not a "disbelief in god or gods" its simply a lack of belief in god or gods, there really is a major difference.