agnostics = weak atheists

[dogsgod]

Huxley claimed an agnostic as one that realizes that one cannot know of these gods that theists claim exist. Gods are not presented by theists in falsifiable terms so an agnostic realizes that it's not possible for anyone to have knowledge of them. The notion of an agnostic being a fence sitter is not the original meaning of agnostic that Huxley had in mind when he coined the term.

What I stated isn't quite true because an agnostic approach can be applied to any unfalsifiable claim, not just that of the theist.

 

[Smoke]

Atheist technically means merely a belief that a god or gods don't exist, but is used more often to refer to a belief that all religions have no basis.

An atheist is one who is godless. If some people use the word to mean one who believes that no religion has any basis, they use it wrongly.

This is quite unlike atheism, which is (usually) a complete denial of all things religious.

I don't know why you think so. Most atheists I've known are antipathetic toward the Abrahamic religions, but they usually take a much milder position toward one or more of the other religions.

"Theism" means a belief because of the "ism" part. The greek word is theos/θεός, no "ism" Theism means "a belief or system wherein a theos or god exists. Therefore, technically, atheism means a system or belief "without a theos" or god.

That's not correct. The suffix -ism is used in a number of different ways, and there's no reason at all to conclude that it indicates a belief system. I doubt you would claim, for instance, that autism, hirsutism, and vulcanism are belief systems.

He created it precisely because, whether you wish to admit it or not, the word "atheist" DOES include the phrase "believes that there is no God".

I assume that this was written in haste and that if you had thought more about it you would have expressed your idea in a way that was not so obviously false.

Which is a lack of a system of belief in which god(s) exist. They don't believe any theos exists. Agnostics make no such claim.

Shall we conclude, then, that agnostics do not lack a system of belief in which gods exist, and that they do believe some theos exists?

 

[Jackytar]

These discussions seem to pop up every few weeks and go nowhere. However, after reading a bunch of them, and participating in a few, I stopped calling myself agnostic. Here's why -

My objection to atheism was a perceived disregard for the limitations of the human condition. Atheists seemed arrogant - a bunch of know-it-alls who replaced the certainty of religious belief with the certainty of scientific pursuit. I would poke and prod at them to point out that there is much we do not know or understand or will ever know or understand - depths of knowledge in which the human mind would ultimately flounder, forever armed with a tiny flashlight against the infinite void - and that they should be more humble in the face of this.

The atheist response is to shrug their shoulders and say, "okay - so what of it?" Do you have anything of meaning, anything non-trivial to say about this void? It's a void, for crying out loud. There it is, let's press on with other meaningful, non-trivial things.

This frustrated the heck out of me. But it eventually occurred to me that my frustration was because they were right. What's the point in staring into the void to try and discern something meaningful or relevant about it, or to continually tap people on the shoulder to say - "excuse me. The void. It's still there! Why are you ignoring it?"

And the term agnostic started to lose any meaning for me. Atheists don't deny there is a void of knowledge and understanding. They listen to and consider musings and convictions as to what lies beyond the veil to include religious belief. But in the end it's still a void and the non-religious of all stripe have to ultimately agree on this. So how am I different from the atheist? Perhaps a little less sceptical of mysticism, a little more embracing of uncertainty, but these are varying shades of the same color. If we need a new word for that then we each need our own individual term to express the totality of our beliefs as no two people are identical in this or any other manner.

Jackytar

 

[Willamena]

The atheist response is to shrug their shoulders and say, "okay - so what of it?" Do you have anything of meaning, anything non-trivial to say about this void? It's a void, for crying out loud.

What's the point in staring into the void to try and discern something meaningful or relevant about it, or to continually tap people on the shoulder to say - "excuse me. The void. It's still there! Why are you ignoring it?"

And the term agnostic started to lose any meaning for me. Atheists don't deny there is a void of knowledge and understanding. They listen to and consider musings and convictions as to what lies beyond the veil to include religious belief. But in the end it's still a void and the non-religious of all stripe have to ultimately agree on this. So how am I different from the atheist? Perhaps a little less sceptical of mysticism, a little more embracing of uncertainty, but these are varying shades of the same color. If we need a new word for that then we each need our own individual term to express the totality of our beliefs.

Jackytar

Good post.

My term is "Just me".

 

[Willamena]

Atheists have a blind spot with regards to "the supernatural" and agnostics do not?

Jackytar

I don't think so. I think they know what it is and reject it based on that, or they know they don't have a clue what it is, and so have no reason to accept it. I wouldn't call that a blind spot.

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Willamena
Neitzsche and Comte were philosophers --that's what they do. Outlining "existence" is a part of metaphysics. But it can be argued that everyone has some belief that determines their position on metaphysics, and for the atheist this picture excludes 'the supernatural'.

Not so. Some atheists believe the supernatural exists and some are without such a belief. Agnostics claim that no one can have knowledge of the supernatural.

You made a claim about "belief" and I made a claim about "position". You're not really disagreeing with what I said, so I've nothing to add.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

An atheist is one who is godless. If some people use the word to mean one who believes that no religion has any basis, they use it wrongly.

Oi vey! Here we go again.
1. - Dictionary.com
Atheist –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

2. - merriam-webster.com
atheist
One entry found. Function: noun Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity

3. - askoxford.com
atheism
/aythi-iz’m/ • noun the belief that God does not exist.

etc....etc....etc....and those are just the first three that I googled.

I assume that this was written in haste and that if you had thought more about it you would have expressed your idea in a way that was not so obviously false.

Nope. No thanks, I'm good.

Shall we conclude, then, that agnostics do not lack a system of belief in which gods exist, and that they do believe some theos exists?

:biglaugh: Absolutely not! That would most distinctly define them as Deists or Theists. :yes:
.
.
.
...and we are not. :no:

As an agnostic I cleave to no faiths. I realize that various human religions/churches/faith systems exist, and that billions of my fellow humans have fallen in with those unproven systems of belief; but I am not one of them. I am skeptical of all things, yet stand ready to accept any theory/system/etc... if sufficient proof is provided.
-- To date, theist of all religions and all faiths have NOT proven that God or gods DO exist.
-- To date, atheists (at all levels of confidence) have NOT proven that God/gods DON'T exist.

I stand here, without beliefs: an agnostic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I stand here, without beliefs: an agnostic.

I stand here, without belief in the existence of god(s): an atheist.

I also stand here, not knowing one way or the other: an agnostic.

I do disbelieve in the existence of god(s) - disbelief being "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true," per Dictionary.com.

 

[Willamena]

I stand here: an atheist.
"I" stand "here": an agnostic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I stand here: an atheist.
"I" stand "here": an agnostic.

What happens when you stand over there?

 

[Willamena]

What happens when you stand over there?

As you've probably guessed: "there" becomes "here".

(Edit: And there is a perspective from which it never ceased being "here".)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As you've probably guessed: "there" becomes "here".

(Edit: And there is a perspective from which it never ceased being "here".)

What about when you're lying down? I tend to be more theistic when I'm lying down - then again that may be due to the flannel sheets.

 

[Jackytar]

As an agnostic I cleave to no faiths. I realize that various human religions/churches/faith systems exist, and that billions of my fellow humans have fallen in with those unproven systems of belief; but I am not one of them. I am skeptical of all things, yet stand ready to accept any theory/system/etc... if sufficient proof is provided.

That, my friend, is atheism.

Consider this. If you and me and atotalstranger and all of the other self-described atheists and agnostics on the planet could somehow plot our individual positions with respect to God on a giant piece of graph paper we would form a cluster. And that cluster would be as tight or tighter than any other category of beliefs.

True story - my wife's uncle and his family, who live in a small community on the coast of Newfoundland, are all ridiculously devout Pentecostals. But he had a problem. He owned a convenience store that sold beer and cigarettes and lotto tickets - all of which which threatened his good standing at the church. If you are a Pentecostal, this, of course, means that you will wear a suit of flames in hell for an eternity. And if you are not a Pentecostal and you are living in a small community on the coast of Newfoundland - you probably spend all of your disposable income on beer and cigarettes and lotto tickets. So he formed his own church that was identical to his old church except... well, you already guessed it.

He broke away from the cluster. But not very far. He didn't become a Catholic (although he could have ) or a Jew or a Pagan. He is still well inside the circle that we would label Pentecostal. And the larger one that we would label Evangelical, and then Protestant, and then Christian, and then Abrahamic, and then Theist. But he would be farther apart from any other Pentecostal than you and me and the vast majority of the others in our cluster would be from each other. He actually had a better reason - a better explanation - for differentiating himself from the others nearby than agnostics do from atheists.

Non-believers are known as atheists. The group was labeled before Huxley came along. And by his definition of his new word agnostic, the vast majority of atheists would wholly qualify. I don't know how he missed that - but he apparently did. So what are we to do? Change our label from atheist to agnostic except for the handful of strong atheists? And prop up Huxley's error with a tedious quibble regarding the definition and general use of the words "know" and "believe"? That would be more pathetic than my wife's uncle. Curse you and your damn word T.H. Huxley!

Jackytar

 

[KarlVonMox]

We have some confused people on this thread over what atheism actually is. No matter how much I repeat that atheism has no content other than a lack of belief, strawman arguments and narrow alternate definitions of atheism keep popping up that allow for the existence of this so called "third" path of agnosticism.

That is probably due to your ignorance of the etymology of the suffix, which dates all the way back to ancient greek. The latin is "ismus" and the greek is ισμός. It is used to refer to a system of beliefs (e.g. the ancient forms for christianity and judaism, ioudaismos and christianismos. "theism" refers to this system in which a theos is involved. The opposite is true for atheism.

Oberon, I find we are going around in circles. Please tell me how words like autism and metabolism are belief systems, and then maybe I'll consider your claim. Otherwise there is no reason to believe that ending a word with "ism" makes it a belief system.

- To date, atheists (at all levels of confidence) have NOT proven that God/gods DON'T exist.

Here is the strawman argument again. Atheists don't have to make this claim - the burden of proof is on the theist, who IS making the positive claim about God's existance. All an atheist is is one who doesn't believe.

I'll repeat it again. I'll repeat a thousand times. An atheist does NOT STATE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. It is not a belief system, it has no doctrine, no content, and it makes absolutely NO claims about the nature of the universe. Some atheists WILL positively say that God does not exist (I do sometimes - it depends on how God is defined - seperate discussion). But atheists don't have to say anything at all. All babies are born atheists before they are indoctrinated into religion once they have rational thought. It is the default state, the state one is in without religion, without supernatural beliefs, without theism. THIS is what atheism really is.

Curse you and your damn word T.H. Huxley!

Seriously! lol

 

[Willamena]

Here is the strawman argument again. Atheists don't have to make this claim - the burden of proof is on the theist, who IS making the positive claim about God's existance. All an atheist is is one who doesn't believe.

Well, it's also on any atheist who makes the positive statement that no god exists.

 

[KarlVonMox]

Well, it's also on any atheist who makes the positive statement that no god exists.

I agree. Unless god is defined in a way that is logically inconsistent.

An example would be a square circle. I can say with 100% certainty that a square circle doesnt exist.

 

[dogsgod]

Leprechauns don't exist either, and I can't prove it, oh my my. What are we to make of that? Is it such a big deal, or is it just a big deal if one states that gods don't exist?

 

[dogsgod]

The point is this, why break atheism down into false dichotomies such as strong and weak? If an atheist makes the statement that gods don't exist it's only a stronger statement than leprechauns don't exist because believers have a great deal invested in their god belief over that of leprechauns. It doesn't change the truth of the matter. Leprechauns don't exist and it really is of no matter that one can't prove it, ditto for gods.

 

[Smoke]

Oi vey! Here we go again.

I know. I always find it curious when people like yourself pull out a brief dictionary definition as if I didn't speak English or as if the purpose of the dictionary was a serious discussion of any topic.

a = without
theos = god
ist = suffix denoting action, condition, use, devotion, or characteristic

But even without knowing the meaning of the word, and granting the simple definitions you have given, a person of moderate intelligence could readily see that "the belief that God does not exist" does not necessarily mean a system of belief, a complete denial of all things religious, certainty that there is no god, a belief that one has "solved the problem of existence", or any of the other nonsense that has been posted here.

If anything, the passage you quoted from Huxley indicates that it's the agnostic who professes a certain belief -- namely, the belief that questions about life and god, about "the problem of existence," are insoluble. If we follow Huxley's definition faithfully, an agnostic is not someone who does not know but someone who believes it is impossible to know. It is the agnostic and not the atheist who has "faith," who professes to know. He knows that "the problem" is insoluble. Atheism makes no positive claims. Some atheists -- a tiny minority, but some -- do make positive claims, but you can no more generalize from that to say that all atheists make such claims than you can generalize from Christian doctrine to say that all theists believe in the Trinity.

The atheist may or may not hold a particular belief or follow a particular system. The agnostic must, following Huxley, believe in the insolubility of "the problem."

As such, it's not unreasonable to say that an agnostic is a particular kind of atheist, an atheist who professes a particular dogmatic belief that is not shared by all atheists.

 

[Willamena]

I can say with 100% certainty that a square circle doesnt exist.

So you're not agnostic towards square circles. Okay.