Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Defining Atheists and Agnostics

Page: (1)2

16:34 / 14.11.06

I have spent the last few months trawling the internet looking for a concrete definition of the terms atheist and agnostic to try to decide which camp i reside.

All i can find are vague, confusing views that combine and overlap to create more confusion than when i simply termed myself as agnostic.

So here's the challenge, either 1) using simple terms define the two terms, and/or 2) i would be grateful for links to sources that people think might help.

16:45 / 14.11.06

Atheists don't believe in God, Agnostics don't know, Theists do.

16:53 / 14.11.06

I thought it was that simple but looking around this does not seem to be the case.

The main problem is that atheists, whilst stating that they don't believe in god(s) don't rule out the possible existance (thats scientists for you). They put it down to levels of probability (Russells teapot in space arguement).

But isn't this an agnostic?

17:02 / 14.11.06

a-theist - without God. (There is no God.)

a-gnostic - without knowledge. (Whether or not there is a God is unknown, and possibly unknowable.)

Etymology is your friend.

17:09 / 14.11.06

Argh! Squirrels put replies in before mine!

atheists, whilst stating that they don't believe in god(s) don't rule out the possible existance.

Yes, they do. If they're actually atheists. Like, say, Penn Jillette. Or Michael Shermer.

The idea of the "vanishingly small" probability probably comes into play here.

17:45 / 14.11.06

I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," (from the Penn link)

Ha! That's great.

They put it down to levels of probability (Russells teapot in space arguement) (Opps)

Then they're agnostics, really. A lot of agnostics skirt one end or other of the spectrum, whether they're looking for proof or just don't see what the fuss is. Russell's teapot example was 'to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion.'

18:50 / 14.11.06

Great link to Penn Jillette article. Best thing i've read so far. Favourite points:

"Anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God."

"Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around."

Its a great article. I can see real thought and respect in what is written.

Thanks

(any more)

22:45 / 14.11.06

Then they're agnostics, really

No, they aren't. You can't definitively demonstrate that some demon isn't fooling you all the time about your sense data (at least, there are plenty of people who wouldn't claim to have some cast iron objective proof of this), but no one says they are "agnostic" about commonly agreed on facts. Thats because claims about god are treated rather differently than claims about anything else and one can assert one's atheism on this basis, while still allowing the possibility that one is wrong.

00:46 / 15.11.06

at risk of confusing the issue, in specific theological contexts, the 'agnostic' tag can be attached to people who express a genuine belief in god, most specifically when you're dealing with the early christian church and medieval mysticism.

in such a context, the term has a distinctly different meaning, refering not to someone who can't make their mind up as to whether or no they believe in god, but someone who lacks gnosis, the experiance of and contact with the divine. most obviously, the term comes up when you're dealing with the gnostic traditions, the cathars and so on; i've also heard medieval theological types apply it to 'the cloud of unknowing'.

in short, in some very narrow contexts, an agnostic can be the equivalent of a gold miner who knows that there's gold in them thar hills, hasn't struck it quite yet, but remains utterly convinced it's out there.

probably utterly irrelevant, apologies.

Hydra vs Leviathan

12:07 / 15.11.06

I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," (from the Penn link)

He does say he's "beyond atheism", and it also seems to be a(n at least semi-)humorous article...

Doesn't an absolute atheist also have absolute, "unshakeable" faith that there is no God?

I'm not sure if i am an atheist, agnostic, or even some sort of pantheist (my commonest religious identification is "ex-Christian", but that's complicated by the fact that there isn't an actual point at which i stopped believing in the Christian God, so much as the belief/concept gradually lost relevance to me, and my study of the internal conflicts of the religion led me to conclude that, as an organised body of faith, it fundamentally breaks all of its own principles)... so, probably am an agnostic by default of that then...

Hydra vs Leviathan

12:11 / 15.11.06

in short, in some very narrow contexts, an agnostic can be the equivalent of a gold miner who knows that there's gold in them thar hills, hasn't struck it quite yet, but remains utterly convinced it's out there.

also, this would imply that the actual sort of "unshakeable faith" that Penn Jillette was condemning there could itself be defined as agnosticism (whereas your actual gnostic point of view, taking that definition of gnosis, would be more akin to a scientific/rationalist "i believe in X because i've actually experienced X" type of belief)...

13:26 / 15.11.06

In practical terms, here in the states, I think people who are really atheistic often identify as "agnostic" rather than "atheist" because atheism has a history of being identified with very aggressive anti-religious atheists. So in common usage I've found an agnostic is someone who doesn't really believe in God, an atheist is someone who makes a religion out of not believing.

18:20 / 15.11.06

I've always thought it was simply three categories of response to Do you believe in God?- yes, no, maybe.

All the other stuff is reframing the question, pointing out how silly the idea of God is, saying it's meaningless or you don't need to answer or you just don't care either way or whatever.

18:39 / 15.11.06

I've always thought it was simply three categories of response to Do you believe in God?- yes, no, maybe.

Well there's also the sub question of: Which one?

as a polytheist I'm often bemused by atheists' arguements about the non existence of the Judeo-Christian God based on problems with omni-related traits. Like omnipresence & omniscient and so on. The questions often asked don't really apply to my Deities who are not infinite beings, just more infinite than I happen to be.

there's a bunch of Gods I don't believe in, there's a bunch I really have no idea about, a bunch that I do believe exist, and a couple that I worship.

Oh there's also antagnostic: belief in Deity/Deities out to get you.

18:54 / 15.11.06

Again though, the words are derived from a particular frame of reference (i.e. Western/European Christian culture) to separate believers from godless heretics. I doubt many indigenous tribesmen in Papau New Guinea think of themselves as agnostics, it's an easy question to subvert.

18:55 / 15.11.06

then you have theophobia, believing in a god, and fearing it, potentially even hating the bastard.

(that said, the term's a bit slippery, and has been used to refer to a more general dislike of religion; a certain mrs. ward's journal of 1885 has a wee pop a bloke as a theophobist 'whom faith in goodness rouses to a fury of contempt.' aaaah, sweeeeet OED...)

19:06 / 15.11.06

Again though, the words are derived from a particular frame of reference (i.e. Western/European Christian culture) to separate believers from godless heretics. I doubt many indigenous tribesmen in Papau New Guinea think of themselves as agnostics, it's an easy question to subvert.

Interesting point - does anyone known if atheists/agnostics exists outside of western culture.

09:43 / 16.11.06

Also see the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise His noodly appendages), the modern version of Russell's teapot (no offence to Pastafarians) and His Gospel.

10:10 / 16.11.06

I'm not sure what I qualify as. As a practicing chaos magician, I use invoke many different Gods and Goddeses when launching a sigil (my preferred method of spellcasting, "keep it stupid, simple" :-D).

However, atheism does not seem to refer pantheistic models of divine beings. I believe that there is a spiritual/biological unity to all life (including the Gods) that has a core collective intelligence who's influence is spread throughout the universe.

But I think this being's will is driven by the collective will of the beings that make it up, a sort of spiritual democracy if you will. I don't believe in the notion of an individual creator that made all things. I believe that big bang was a sort of consensus arrangement from a collective of sentient, divine forces who's identity has been lost as the ages have past.

Since I'm not sure if my definition of God qualifies as 'God' I don't know if I'm an atheist. Similarly, I don't know if my belief in many God's and Goddeses precludes me from being an agnostic, since they could just be spiritual beings who don't posses biologically tangible forms.

For now, I'm just going to call myself a pantheist and debate the finer points later.

10:51 / 16.11.06

One thing I've gotten from skimming the responses on this post: Agnostic is not really a very reliable term. It could mean, "I don't know if there's a God but haven't ruled out the possibility." "I don't think there's a God but I really don't know for sure." or "I have no fucking idea if God exists and I don't care, anyway."

Whereas atheism basically means 'God doesn't exist' and theists believe in God.

I guess I should rephrase my prior definition of myself as pantheist.

Maybe we should start a new religion called cartheism for people who worship cars. I know more people who offer praise to the righteous automobiles than the Christian God, anyway :-D

13:06 / 16.11.06

I believe that there is a spiritual/biological unity to all life (including the Gods) that has a core collective intelligence who's influence is spread throughout the universe.

But that's no more or less provable than Jehovah or His Noodly Magnificence. The whole idea of the word Atheist, defining someone by something they *don't* believe in is what some people object to.
If someone asks if you believe in the Spaghetti Monster, then defines you by your answer, you'd look at them a bit strangely and sidle away. If you're talking about the dominant local religion though you get categorised into 'Faithful' or 'Unbeliever' or 'Undecided'.
I don't believe in the Christian God or the Spaghetti God so I'm technically an Atheist- but I certainly wouldn't think of myself that way, I believe in gods in general. Come to the Temple and discuss it if you like.

16:55 / 18.11.06

Quintum - thanks for your invite. For those who are interested i have re-started this thread in Temple (should be interesting)

05:26 / 19.11.06

I'm an atheist. There's no god or gods. We all know it. Deep down inside. It's what fuels the faith of the faithful, their deep and abiding knowledge that it's all just the wiring inside us, the mysterious thing we call soul or mind or heart or spirit. Whitman's spark. The body electric. We made the gods. We invented goodness. We named evil.

The agnostic just wants to be polite. He doesn't want to shatter the faithful's clinging hope in goodness, or their mystic awe at the ineffable complexity and beauty of the universe.

Not me. It's time we woke up. People with nuclear weapons can't afford to believe in gods or angels or messiahs. We made this bed and sleep in it, alone and cold. We lose sleep at night praying to this never-been-there god.

There is no god. You know it. Time we stopped waiting for some invisible superman to sort us out. Time to stop using religion as an excuse to kill and destroy.

Better to have faith in ourselves than faith in god. Even if the rotten bastard is up there....

Our Lady Has Left the Building

19:55 / 19.11.06

I tend not to define myself as atheist mainly because the only atheists that tend to get airtime are the Fundamentalist Atheists like Richard Dawkins, wankers to a man (and they seem to be men, I haven't come across any female FAs yet, but I suppose they are out there). If you have a subscription to New Scientist you can read this article where Dawkins, yet again, rubs his hands at the prospect of doing to those nasty Christians what they did to him at some point in the past. Jack Fear can probably tell you that I've not exactly been reasoned in my dislike of Christianity in the past but Richard Dawkins makes me go "Uh-uh, I'm not with him!" and I'll be happy to do it more than three times and after the cock crows.

I wonder what the opinion of the magicians on the board who work with gods is. Do they consider themselves theists automatically, or are their gods something else so seperate to the question of religious belief?

21:36 / 19.11.06

Temple, dude.

We all know it. Deep down inside.

Yeah. That's why there's a church or mosque or temple in every town, yeah? Consider this statement;
The flying spaghetti monster exists. We all know it. Deep down inside.
You see how utterly ridiculous that reads?

19:07 / 20.11.06

NB. This is an exact copy of a post that appears in the thread that is running parallel in the Temple (it seemed relevant to both).

Thanks folks for all the info. I must say that i am closer to being an atheist now than agnostic but i'm still going to continue the enquiry. You know, i just enjoy the chase/confusion.

The thing that has effected me most so far from these posts was Penn Jillette quote 'anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.'

I just like this idea, remaining atheist and looking for evidence. A continuous enquiry.

The game goes on...

21:01 / 20.11.06

Is Dawkins perhaps more of an antitheist?

I find myself increasingly in the rabid atheist camp, but mostly because I find it hard to tolerate raging illogic in any arena. It frustrates the heck out of me. My theistic friends no doubt feel the same way about me. Our belief systems cannot be reconciled.

I don't feel spiritually diminished by atheism; rather, my appreciation of and delight in the world, cosmos and the myriad things I don't understand is alive and flourishing.

22:29 / 20.11.06

I find myself increasingly in the rabid atheist camp, but mostly because I find it hard to tolerate raging illogic in any arena.
One thing I don't understand is the claim of ultimate logic among many dogmatic atheists. The reason I would classify myself as an agnostic (and I would use that in the traditional "not knowing" sense)is that I know that I don't know everything.That seems logical. Theism and most religions seem pretty senseless to me, but beyond that what the hell do I know?
As for the definitions, it seems to be a fair distinction that theism and atheism are both inherently dogmatic.

*

23:36 / 20.11.06

Everyone's stance on religion seems perfectly logical to them. It is possible for a system to be internally perfectly logical but externally nonsensical, simply due to a difference of fundamental assumptions. No one starts with no fundamental assumptions. It seems to me that often when an atheist accuses a theist of flawed logic, what they're really taking issue with are the fundamental assumptions that give rise to that logical system. Vice versa as well. There's no way to understand that system without momentarily accepting the givens upon which it depends, and it's very difficult to debate or analyze the givens... given many people's very strong attachment to them. Viewing the question with this set of assumptions has helped me make more sense out of both theist and atheist arguments.

00:35 / 21.11.06

That's probably a very good perspective to have about a lot of things.

03:49 / 21.11.06

That's why there's a church or mosque or temple in every town, yeah?

Are those temples built for the benefit of the gods or the believers? Man builds churches for the same reason he builds houses: shelter from the storm. We know there's no god, so we build a church to the glory of god where we can hide from the awful truth of god's non-existence. Churches as communities are a defiance of the loneliness of our existence. There's no god, but there are other people who wish there was a god.

The flying spaghetti monster exists. We all know it. Deep down inside.
You see how utterly ridiculous that reads?

It is indeed pretty ridiculous to assert the existence of the FSM. How about "The flying spaghetti monster does not exist. We all know it. Deep down inside."

Which is what I'm saying. God does not exist. No more than Santa Claus or Superman. We invented gods. Not vice-versa. There is no god, no gods, but the ones we invent, which are not gods at all but ideas of gods.

I don't reject the idea or belief in god because of logic. I reject it because it's ridiculous and childish to believe in god. I might as well believe in Santa, and hope he'll leave me nice presents this year.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

05:44 / 21.11.06

It's a shame that you don't reject the idea or belief in god because of logic because then you would have an argument that made some sort of sense. If you 'just know' that God doesn't exist, and that belief in God is 'stupid and childish' how is that dogmatic belief any better than that of someone who 'just knows' that God does exist and that anyone who ignores this fact is 'stupid and childish'?

08:29 / 27.11.06

Another interpretation of word atheism is "without god", and this is the way I like to think of nyself as an atheist.

I don't think gods exists, but, even if there are gods, I'm not going to worship them. I have no god at all.

10:50 / 03.10.07

calgodot is expressing the "bright" pov, that atheism is simply the smartest natural thing to do. The problem with this stance is that it naturally presents a very obious flaw: The inherent insult of the theist as dumb, childish and naive. This will simply never convince, as there are quite a lot of theists who aren´t all that stupid.

I´m an atheist myself, by the way, and I think Pastafarianism is a good way to convey the message without resorting to insult. "Reductio ad absurdum", as the romans said, is a possible way to show the believer that his beliefs quite probably are equally absurd, without insulting his intellect directly.

As stated somewhere above, agnosticism can go both ways. The atheist normally considers the possibility of the existance of god to be quite small, without ruling it out completely. The "myth" parable, used by Dawkins, states that he is agnostic about god in the same way he is agnostic about faeries. But still, if evidence is found, his assumption will probably change. A "fundamentalist" atheist would continue disbelieving in god even if he was confronted with considerable ammounts of evidence. This kind of atheist is quite seldom, however.

The kraken has been found, who knows what we might find next? It´s all about finding out, really.

13:23 / 03.10.07

The kraken has been found, who knows what we might find next?

It has? Get thee to the Lab and inform me. INFORM!

Page: (1)2