Are agnostics atheists?

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Are agnostics atheists?

a·the·ism –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

ag·nos·ti·cism -noun
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=agnosticism

Agnostics do not believe in God, they say that they don't know. Does this fit with the second definition of the word "atheism".

It seems to me that all agnostics are atheists, since they are godless, but not all atheists are agnostic, since some atheists are certain.

[Fox Mulder]

1. No, agnostics are not atheists.

Like definition #2 of agnosticism, agnostics can't say for sure whether or not God exists. There's no proof to say he exists and there's no proof that says he doesn't exist.

Atheists flat out don't believe in a god/supreme being(s). There's no doubt in them.

I'm an agnostic, btw.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Atheism seems to have two definitions in many dictionaries.

1. Denial of the existence of gods
2. disbelief in gods

Agnostics are godless, this seems to fit definition 2.

[patrice]

16. belief =/= knowledge nt

[Warpy]

27. Not quite

My mother the Irish Catholic agnostic was in the "don't know, don't care" camp. It was just nothing she devoted a whole lot of thought to. In other words, she didn't really give a hoot whether a god existed or not and had no opinion on the subject.

Atheists have devoted a lot of thought to it and have come up empty on data that even hint at the existence of any sort of supreme being.

However, don't worry. Most of us stay closeted in the "I'm just not religious" ghetto so that we don't ruffle the feathers of believers, too many of whom are deeply threatened by the notion that not everybody buys their belief in god or gods.

[BurtWorm]

65. Most atheists nowadays, I find, define atheism as lack of belief.

That's how I define it and how most of my fellow atheists on DU define it, as far as I can tell. If that's the case, I agree with you: agnostics--who clearly lack belief for whatever reason--are, in fact, atheists whether they like it or not.

[skepticscott]

21. Why do you say that atheists have no doubt?

A lack of belief is not the same thing as having no doubt. Some atheists don't believe in any of the things that people have worshipped as "god(s)" because they have not been convinced by evidence or argument that any such things actually exist outside the minds of their believers. This still leaves open the possibility that unambiguous evidence to that effect could one day appear, though for some strange reason, it never seems to, even at opportune moments. Other atheists positively assert that there is no "God", period. Here, "God" is usually (though perhaps somewhat provincially) taken to mean the divine being of the Bible, since that's the one of greatest interest and the one that is usually rammed down our throats every day. The latter (call them strong atheists if you like) present themselves as having no doubt, and this is often taken as a logically untenable position (you supposedly can't prove non-existence), but as they correctly point out, even people who believe in one or some gods also take a strong atheistic position about others (like Zeus, Thor, etc.) with the same certainty that those whom they label as "atheists" have about the non-existence of their god. This points out that a really defensible position of strong atheism really needs to be taken one god at a time and can't just be a blanket that covers all of the thousands of things people have worshipped as gods throughout human history. It also begs the (usually overlooked) question of just what it is that would qualify a being or entity that really existed as a "god", as opposed to just a very powerful non-god.

[Fox Mulder]

24. If atheists have doubt, then wouldn't they be agnostics?

:shrug:

[patrice]

33. You have to have knowledge of something in order to doubt it.

Agnosticism is based on knowledge, without knowledge of something to doubt, there can't be any doubt, nor affirmation.

No god-knowledge, no god-input, "god" does not compute one way or the other, like a null set, not n, not 0, not anything, indeterminent.

[Random_Australian]

52. Technically true, but you really need only a very, very little amount of information.

For instance, for us users of the scientific method, the knowledge that something is not in the null hypothesis is enough to not believe something.

And wouldn't you know it, no notion of God has ever made it into the null.

[skepticscott]

49. Depends on how you define your terms

A lack of belief due to a lack of evidence and a willingness to modify that view if new and convincing evidence comes along is not doubt in my book, but firmly grounded rationality. My lack of belief in gods in not based on "doubt" or on the fact that the existence of every single god people ever worshipped has been unquestionably disproven. I simply find no good reason to believe in any of them at this point.

Personally, I think the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" is as much semantic as anything else, and based on what particular people prefer to call themselves. If someone lacks belief in any gods, then they do qualify as an a-theist under one definition, even if they choose to use another label for whatever reason. As far as doubt goes, even religious believers sometimes have doubts about god, but that doesn't make them agnostics.

[patrice]

30. Excellent post!

The issue also begs the question that if a god is something so all powerfully beyond us that it is ineffable, how can we define god well enought to believe or know anything about god?

By definition, isn't any definition of god Blasphemy? So what the heck are we saying we believe or know? We are saying we don't believe or know about what someone else is calling "god".

[Sal Minella]

2. The answer is in the question.

"gnostic" refers to "knowing," as in "prognosticator."

A-theist = without God.

A-gnostic = without knowledge (of whether God exists or not).

[ZombieHorde]

7. without god

Agnostics are without god, are they not?

[Sal Minella]

12. Agnostics don't know whether they're without God or not. That's why they're agnostics.

[ZombieHorde]

25. This makes no sense.

Either you believe that gods are real, or you do not. If you don't know if gods are real, then you don't believe in gods.

[TZ]

36. No

Its not a matter of black and white (like most things in life btw). I know MANY agnostics who go to church. Its just that they have doubts, but most feel like its something unprovable and therefore many don't got overly worked up about it.
I know agnostics who would be very insulted to be called athiests.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Its just that they have doubts

I think that I am confused.

Are you saying that they doubt god, but pray to him anyway?

[Sal Minella]

46. If you don't know whether or not gods exist, you don't DISbelieve in gods.

Agnostics can remain perfectly willing to believe in gods if/when we are given the knowledge that they exist. Meanwhile, we don't deny the existence of gods.

[ZombieHorde]

47. you don't DISbelieve in gods

That would go against the second definition for atheism. Something for me to think about.

[Fox Mulder]

13. Yes and no.

I want to believe in God or Gods, but the lack of evidence of his/their existence makes me doubt the existence of either.

I'm not godless per se. I'm willing to accept the existence of one if there were proof.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I'm not godless per se.

But you do not have a personal god. Does that not make you godless.

[Fox Mulder]

22. I don't know how else to explain it better.

[patrice]

14. Agnostics are neither with nor without god. To be so would require knowledge which they do not have

[ZombieHorde]

23. Agnostics are neither with nor without god

This statement does not make any sense. You either believe in something, or you don't. If you don't know, then you don't believe.

[patrice]

28. You're still mixing belief and knowledge. A/Theism is about belief,

Gnosticism is about Knowledge, hence the different words (theism and gnosticism).

[ZombieHorde]

32. You're still mixing belief and knowledge.

What is the difference?

[patrice]

34. Belief does not require experience. One just believes.

Knowledge does require experience. It has an experiential base, either direct or indirect experience is necessary in order to "know".

[ZombieHorde]

39. require experience

I feel like there is an elephant in the room that I simply can not see.

It seems to me that you must have some prior experience to believe something. Hearing heart-felt church testimonies or reading the bible. Some people claim to feel the spirit of the Lord.

Some people feel that the Bible has more facts in it than the average high-school science book.

[Fovea]

29. You cannot say

if you take the term at face value.
All else is connotation. The denotation of the term does not support your assertion.

[panader0]

3. No

An atheist does not believe in god
an agnostic does know what to believe.

I'm an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac: I lay awake at night and wonder if there really is a dog.

[ZombieHorde]

6. With you definitions, agnostics are atheists because they do not believe in god.

[Ian David]

4. Agnosticism

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural.

Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God.

The term 'agnostic' was created by T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who took his cue from David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Huxley says that he invented the term to describe what he thought made him unique among his fellow thinkers:

They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

'Agnostic' came to mind, he says, because the term was "suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant...." Huxley seems to have intended the term to mean that metaphysics is, more or less, bunk. In short, he seems to have agreed with Hume's conclusion at the end of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.*

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason resolved some of the main epistemological issues raised by Hume, but at the expense of rejecting the possibility of knowing anything beyond appearances of phenomena. We can't know God but the idea of God is a practical necessity, according to Kant.


More:
http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html



Also:


atheism

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. -- George Herbert Walker Bush

Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution ("No Atheist shall hold a civil office") states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws.*

An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support. --John Buchan

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.--Stephen F. Roberts

Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. This definition does not capture the atheism of many atheists, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence. There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God. I'm not sure there is even any meaning to the former. Before one can disbelieve in something, that something must be intelligible and it must be understood. Since belief in new gods may appear in the future and it is impossible to know what will be meant by reference to those gods, it makes no sense to say one disbelieves in all gods. Likewise, some conceptions of God are so confusing as to be little more than gibberish. How can one disbelieve in the "ineffable ground of all being"? The expression has no meaning for me and I suspect that those who claim it is meaningful to them don't know what they're talking about.

However, since there are many concepts of god(s) and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods or groups of gods.

Some atheists may know of many gods and reject belief in the existence of all of them. Such a person might be called a polyatheist. All theists are atheists in the sense that they deny the existence of all other gods except theirs, but they don't consider themselves atheists. Most people today who consider themselves atheists probably mean that they do not believe in the existence of the local god. For example, most people who call themselves atheists in a culture where the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God (JCoIG or Jaycolgee) dominates would mean, at the very least, that they do not believe that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient Providential Personal Creator of the universe. And, people who believe in the JCoIG would consider such disbelief tantamount to atheism.

More:
http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

[ZombieHorde]

10. I love how your post argues

that agnostics are not atheists, but that theists are atheists. Super awesome.

[patrice]

8. Having no knowledge of something does not imply its existence nor its non-existence.

It's simply no knowledge, no input, does not compute.

If I have no empirical knowledge of something others refer to as photosynthesis, there is no logical necessity that says photosynthesis does not exist and the only thing I know of its "existence" is that others claim that it is so. For me to take a position one way or the other is to claim knowledge one way or the other and I have already claimed that I have no knowledge.

[ZombieHorde]

15. does not imply its (gods) existence nor its non-existence.

It seems to me that if you do not actively believe in any god, then you are godless. A person who honestly claims that they do not know if there are gods or not, is a godless person.

[patrice]

20. Okay, I can't carry on a conversation that equates knowledge and belief.

So, can we start there please?

What is your definition of knowledge?

What is your definition of belief?

[ZombieHorde]

31. Very good question. I went outside and thought about it while I enjoyed a smoke.

What is your definition of knowledge?

Information stored, usually in the brain, that may or may not be true. -- "The knowledge I found in this book was useful." "I know capital of all 47 States."

What is your definition of belief?

1. synonym for knowledge as above -- "I know that there is a god" = "I believe that there is a god."

2. synonym for "seem(s)" -- "(I believe/it seems) that I have enough sugar to make these cookies." "(I believe that I/I seem to) have lost my keys."

[patrice]

26. "if you do not actively believe in any god, then you are godless"

If there were a god, why would it depend upon my belief? or, for that case, my knowledge?

Whether there's a quarter in my change purse or not does not depend upon either my belief nor my knowledge, but I MAY claim that I don't know whether there is one there or not. And I may also claim that I believe one is there whether it IS there or whether it isn't.

[ZombieHorde]

35. why would it depend upon my belief?

The existence, or lack thereof, of god does not depend on your belief or knowledge. But if you do not actively believe in god(s), then you are a godless individual, regardless of gods existence.

[patrice]

40. That's what I'm asking you. You said those who don't believe in god are godless and I said

Why woud the existence of a god depend upon my belief. Just like the quarter in my change purse, I can say "I don't believe the quarter is in my change purse" and go about my life basing my actions on that belief, BUT the quarter COULD be there nonetheless and my belief is simply in error. My belief does not affect the existence of the quarter one way or the other.

[ZombieHorde]

43. My subject line "why would it..." is from your post, I was just answering your question.

[patrice]

38. AND

If I claim that I don't know whether that quarter is in my change purse or whether it isn't there and that quarter IS there, I'm neither right nor wrong, because my statement was "I don't know", not that it was or wasn't so. The same is true if the quarter ISN'T there.

If I go look in my change purse, I have EXPERIENCE, and hence, knowledge of whether the quarter is there or not, so I may say "I know the quarter is in my change purse." or "I know the quarter is not in my change purse" and I may be right or wrong, depending upon whether the quarter was or was not actually there.

Belief doesn't have anything to do with experience. I simply may say "I believe the quarter is in my change purse." and vice versa - And depending upon whether it actually is there or not, I CAN be in error.

[ZombieHorde]

41. if I feel the spirit of the Lord

If I go look in my change purse, I have EXPERIENCE, and hence, knowledge of whether the quarter is there or not, so I may say "I know the quarter is in my change purse." or "I know the quarter is not in my change purse" and I may be right or wrong, depending upon whether the quarter was or was not actually there.

So, if I feel the spirit of the Lord (maybe that quarter was really a nickel), do I have knowledge of gods existence?

[C_U_L8R]

9. I don't believe in church

or the very idea that priesthoods or any person
for that matter represents the will of god.
Rather, we're simply all made of the same spirit stuff.. or god if you will.
I thought that made me agnostic.. at least as far as church going is concerned.

[rox63]

11. No, agnostics are not atheists

I'm an agnostic. I think it's possible that there is a creator spirit. But there is no proof. And if there is a god-like being, it is probably beyond the ability of humans to fully comprehend. So, yeah, maybe there's a god, but maybe there isn't.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Would it be fair to say that you are godless?

[rox63]

53. No - I believe in the possibility of God

But I have no way to prove it one way or another.

[johnnypneumatic]

18. atheism is not a doctrine or a belief, it is a lack of belief

the atheist is practical and says "Look, there is no santa claus, sorry. So let's just get on with our lives without worrying about this time wasting issue."

the agnostic is not sure because there is no way to prove absolutely that there is no Santa Claus(though they grant it seems highly improbable), so it just might be possible, even though we can't prove he does exist either, you can't dismiss the outside possibility, and what about the children, you'll ruin all their fun, so let's let people keep pretending if they want to.

[pokerfan]

42. An agnostic can be either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

[ZombieHorde]

44. That entry seems to be about a branch of agnostism, agnostic theism.

But I do like this chart.

[pokerfan]

48. Here's the entry on agnostic atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[varkam]

45. To me, it's like asking if women are police officers.

IOW, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think that one can be both an agnostic and an atheist because I think the two terms describe different areas of epistemology (just like in my example, the term "woman" and the term "police officer" both describe different things, namely biological sex and occupation).

I think the modern definition of an agnostic being someone who believes in a "spiritual" creator or similiar ideas is essentially playing fast and loose with the language. What agnosticism entails is ignorance in the purest sense of the term. To be agnostic with respect to something is to hold that one is without knowledge. To be agnostic with regards to God is to simply mean that one lacks knowledge of god's alleged existence.

This is where it gets interesting. I think that there is a subtle, albeit real difference between knowledge and belief. Plato was one of the first philosophers to comment on this, and placed cognitiion on a continuum with knowledge on one side and belief on another. Essentially, knowledge entails truth, whereas belief does not. It is a false statement to say that "I know 2+2=5", because that is plainly false. Since knowledge entails truth, one cannot know a falsehood - but you can believe it.

To put it more bluntly, if there is a difference between knowledge and belief, then it is clear to me that one can be an agnostic and an atheist, or an agnostic and a Christian, and so on and so forth. That's because the terms "atheist" and "Christian" focus on belief, rather than knowledge.

Agnosticism as a philosophical principle as it relates to god is, too, not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism. One can simultaneously hold that knowledge concerning such matters is unattainable and believe (or not believe) one way or the other.

In my mind, we're all agnostics whether we want to admit it or not. What we believe, however, is a different matter entirely.

[smoogatz]

50. Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve.

They suspend judgment. Suggesting that atheists and agnostics are "godless" implies that believers are "godful," which would require the existence of god(s) to be true. You can't be godful or godless if there are no gods.

[TechBear_Seattle]

54. Also, agnosticism is distinct from apatheism

The breakdown I've heard is:

Theist - "I believe in God."
Weak atheist - "I do not believe in God."
Strong atheist - "I believe there is no God."
Agnostic - "I do not know if I believe in God or not."
Apatheist - "I believe I'll have another slice of cake."

[smoogatz]

56. Apatheist—I like it.

I'm not sure about the weak/strong atheist distinction, though. I've never met an atheist who claimed to "believe there is no god." Most of us are skeptical of the whole notion of belief in the supernatural. To claim that you believe in the non-existence of the supernatural doesn't really make sense.

[TechBear_Seattle]

57. There is actually a Wikipedia article for apatheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

As for the weak/strong distinction, I have associated with a great many atheists over the years. Most take the position that they do not believe. I have, however, met a number of "dogmatic atheists" who assert as a matter of faith (sic) that there is no such thing as God, gods or other supernatural entities. When a distinction between these two camps is warranted, the distinction is described as being between "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism.

The description I gave skewed the postion just slightly to keep the words "believe," "no" and "know" intact for humor value. And seeing it like this, I will reword the last line to be "I believe I will have some cake now," to make a visual pun on "know." :hi:

[smoogatz]

58. No reason there can't be irrational atheists, I guess.

Basing one's non-belief on "faith" seems like knee-jerk contrarianism; an emotional response rather than a thoughtful, logical conclusion. I've been around atheists and agnostics literally my whole life and never met one whose approach to atheism was dogmatic, but no doubt such people do exist. What I'm interested in is the notion of evangelical atheism: I think we really ought to think about going door-to-door and asking people to stop reading their Bibles, and maybe handing out tracts on humanism and Darwin.

[TechBear_Seattle]

59. The LAST thing we want is for people to stop reading their Bibles

Most of the atheists of my aquaintance became atheists specifically because they started reading Scripture.

[smoogatz]

60. Good point. n/t

[dmallind]

61. From your mouth to....somebody's ears.

Here's my favorite. It's amazing how many people get snotty at this one even though they are not the target...


http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[TechBear_Seattle]

62. Brilliant. Amazingly, stupendously brilliant.

Thank Hank for allowing you to post this. :toast:

[Random_Australian]

51. If you wanted to get precise about it, you also need the tidbit of information

that agnostics consider the two ideas (That there is or isn't a god) to be in some sense equal; or at least not unequal (like an atheist or theist).

Note: "In some sense equal" isn't a particilarly accurate way of putting it, but "element in the conjugate set to union of the sets of those who believe and those who don't believe in God, in the domain that is the union of all the sets that contain at least one element with the property that it is a tautology to any set of information that constitutes a human belief" lacked a little brevity.

(Yes, I'm assuming/approximating continuity and numeration, but not that elements can be ordered or transformed)

[dmallind]

55. So what were agnostics before the word was invented?

And invented by the way to reject certanity by revelation - nothing to do with theism per se. Agnostic is a term of epistemology, not ontology.

If you lack a god belief, no matter how plausible or worthy of consideration you consider any god belief, then you lack theism and are an atheist. It's a binary condition. This supposed "middle way" of agnosticism is a modern development more to do with avoiding negatively loaded terms than answering ontological questions.

And a reminder - dictionaries list usages, not definitions. Atheism means only what it says - a lack of god belief. Only a tiny subset of atheists - "strong" atheists - have an active beliefe that there can be no possible god.

It's not all about Jehovah after all.

[frebrd]

63. Some agnostics actually "don't know"...

and some are atheists who haven't the stones to admit it (either to themselves or to others).

[old mark]

64. certainly not

agnostics, by definition, DON'T KNOW for sure one way or the other. They are in fact giving thought and study to the question, which is more than most "religious" jerks ever do.
Blind ignorance is not religion - it is magic.

mark

[pegleg]

66. I don't believe in atheists.