Any atheist is agnostic. Why? Are they compatible?

[joinfree]

The PhD has said about herself: "The more correct term is agnostic, but I am atheist." in the video:

How compatible is following contradiction in any atheist:

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

 

[Shadow]

How compatible is following contradiction in any atheist:

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

Long story short, Atheism isn't one idea but comes in different forms. There is overlap between Agnosticism and Atheism in that someone may claim:

a) That there is no (legitimate) evidence for the existence of god (which is atheistic)
b) It remains possible that a god could exist (which is agnostic)

So an "agnostic atheist" does not believe god exists but is open to the possibility that god exists. It is a form of scepticism of religious claims rather than a denial of religious belief and supernatural causes entirely.

Christians are more familiar with the "strong atheist" who would argue that:

a) There is no (legitimate) evidence for the existence of god
b) That the existence of god is impossible because every phenomena is the result of natural causes, including ones we don't know yet.

The difference between them is basically on whether the existence of god is possible or not (irrespective of evidence) and this goes back to whether you can say that everything we don't know about the universe has a "natural" cause. This argument is often based on the Uniformity of Nature and Metaphysical Naturalism or "materialism") . If you said everything we don't know will have a natural cause god is not necessary to explain anything and would be impossible anyways.

For most sceptics, this is unreasonable and dogmatic as you cannot "know" something that is unknown, so they remain open to the possibility of supernatural causes and therefore of evidence of god's existence. The overlap and difference between agnosticism and atheism is primarily a question about the limits of knowledge and science and how far we can treat the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. So they are compatible, but "it depends" on the kind of atheist or agnostic your dealing with. Some Atheists are agnostic, others are not.

 

[joinfree]

Long story short, Atheism isn't one idea but comes in different forms. There is overlap between Agnosticism and Atheism in that someone may claim:

a) That there is no (legitimate) evidence for the existence of god (which is atheistic)
b) It remains possible that a god could exist (which is agnostic) …..

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

 

[salt-n-light]

Long story short, Atheism isn't one idea but comes in different forms. There is overlap between Agnosticism and Atheism in that someone may claim:

a) That there is no (legitimate) evidence for the existence of god (which is atheistic)
b) It remains possible that a god could exist (which is agnostic)

So an "agnostic atheist" does not believe god exists but is open to the possibility that god exists. It is a form of scepticism of religious claims rather than a denial of religious belief and supernatural causes entirely.

Christians are more familiar with the "strong atheist" who would argue that:

a) There is no (legitimate) evidence for the existence of god
b) That the existence of god is impossible because every phenomena is the result of natural causes, including ones we don't know yet.

The difference between them is basically on whether the existence of god is possible or not (irrespective of evidence) and this goes back to whether you can say that everything we don't know about the universe has a "natural" cause. This argument is often based on the Uniformity of Nature and Metaphysical Naturalism or "materialism") . If you said everything we don't know will have a natural cause god is not necessary to explain anything and would be impossible anyways.

For most sceptics, this is unreasonable and dogmatic as you cannot "know" something that is unknown, so they remain open to the possibility of supernatural causes and therefore of evidence of god's existence. The overlap and difference between agnosticism and atheism is primarily a question about the limits of knowledge and science and how far we can treat the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. So they are compatible, but "it depends" on the kind of atheist or agnostic your dealing with. Some Atheists are agnostic, others are not.

I guess my question for agnostic atheistism is that why then when I come across those that fall in that category, that they usually readily reject the Christian faith, if they are supposed to be open to the idea that a God exists. Is it the stigma that it's a structured faith that turns them away?

Or is it that they are open not to God, but that there is something higher than us, like more of a mystic/spiritual existence. But even then, it wouldn't matter that your agnostic if you're readily rejecting. Then that's not being open. Its either someone is seeking or skepticizing, it's hard to be that neutral on such topics as it sounds like with agnostic atheism. That's my take. But wanna hear a response cause agnostic atheism, is a pretty new term for me.

 

[joinfree]

I guess my queston for agnostic atheist is that why then when I come across them, that they usually readily reject the Christian faith, if they are suppose to be open to the idea that a God exist. Is it the stigma that its a structured faith that turns them away?

Any human has a god. Existence is the main property of a thing. So, there are two Gods only: existent for theists, and a-existent for atheists. Therefore you are coming to people, who like their own god, not yours.

 

[salt-n-light]

Any human has a god. Existence is the main property of a thing. So, there are two Gods only: existent for theists, and a-existent for atheists. Therefore you are coming to people, who like their own god, not yours.

But then there’s no true atheist, atheist would be then an abstract concept, if you’re describing it like that. If every human has a god, that means that there’s no refuting that god exist, it’s just that people either believe that God exist outside them or that they are their own god.

Which would be true. Bible already explains all that and that’s nothing new. But then it still doesn’t address the question of if agnostic atheism is really as neutral and as much of a neatly packaged term as it present itself to be.

 

[DaisyDay]

Any human has a god.

I suppose you could define "god" loosely enough to sort of make that true...but do babies with no higher brain function have a god? And then, some people, Hindus for example, have many gods rather than "a" god.

Existence is the main property of a thing.

What is the main property of non-existent things such as unicorns and leprechauns?

So, there are two Gods only: existent for theists, and a-existent for atheists. Therefore you are coming to people, who like their own god, not yours.

A tidy, binary argument that doesn't hold water.

Also, many people define "agnosticism" as the belief that whether God exists or not is simply unknowable. Some atheists don't believe that any particular god does exist while others insist that particular gods do not exist; really strong atheists believe that it is either not possible or highly unlikely for a supernatural consciousness that created all space and time out of thought and Word to exist. There are many variations - one size does not fit all.

 

[salt-n-light]

I suppose you could define "god" loosely enough to sort of make that true...but do babies with no higher brain function have a god? And then, some people, Hindus for example, have many gods rather than "a" god.

Actually he’s kinda right for saying it.

Biblically “god” is not exclusive to supernatural beings, but more to describe someone of high authority over others, so judges, rulers, priest for examples were also called “gods”. So yes everyone have a god. Its a matter of authority.

So do babies have one, on my end yes. Whether they esteem them as such is another matter. There’s also such a thing as false gods, someone or something that is esteem as god but is not. That can range as something made up to a real person.

But even among the true gods like kings and rulers, you have the King of kings and Lord of lords,God. That why God said “there should be no other gods before me”, because He is the ultimate authority.

But again, his explanation makes atheism abstract.

 

[ananda]

The PhD has said about herself: "The more correct term is agnostic, but I am atheist." in the video:

How compatible is following contradiction in any atheist:

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

 

[joinfree]

But then there’s no true atheist, atheist would be then an abstract concept, if you’re describing it like that. If every human has a god, that means that there’s no refuting that god exist, it’s just that people either believe that God exist outside them or that they are their own god.

Which would be true. Bible already explains all that and that’s nothing new. But then it still doesn’t address the question of if agnostic atheism is really as neutral and as much of a neatly packaged term as it present itself to be.

Why the atheists 1. have own god, 2. never admit that, always hiding the idol under the carpet? The reason is simple the hate to use divine terminology, because it came from theism - the atheism has nothing genuine to offer.

 

[Shadow]

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

Maybe, but outside the “mind games” of whether something is logical or is proof or not, I think for most atheists they simply haven’t had any personal experience of god, or that they would call god.

I guess my question for agnostic atheistism is that why then when I come across those that fall in that category, that they usually readily reject the Christian faith, if they are supposed to be open to the idea that a God exists. Is it the stigma that it's a structured faith that turns them away?

Or is it that they are open not to God, but that there is something higher than us, like more of a mystic/spiritual existence. But even then, it wouldn't matter that your agnostic if you're readily rejecting. Then that's not being open. Its either someone is seeking or skepticizing, it's hard to be that neutral on such topics as it sounds like with agnostic atheism. That's my take. But wanna hear a response cause agnostic atheism, is a pretty new term for me.

Personally, I have been leaning much closer to the idea of denying gods existence but it is a position thats not self-evident and difficult to prove. Its emotionally satisfying but intellectually not as much. I wasn’t aware that agnostic atheism was a “thing” either until I debated them on the internet.

At a guess though, agnostic atheists reject christian faith because they don’t consider the proof legitimate. I’m not even sure its a choice for them as its so knee-jerk. they might as well be bots online as they dedication to “logic” takes all the humanity out of religious experience. So the bible is not taken as evidence of the word of god, quoting scripture doesn’t help, and people witnessing miracles or having profound spiritual experiences would typically not count either.

I am guilty of being closed to religious experience, but yeah, I do find that agnostic atheists professed “openness” to religious belief doesn’t translate in to action. I don’t understand them really, but just know they are out there in large numbers. *shrugs*

 

[High Fidelity]

Most atheists are agnostic but identify as atheists because they lean more towards the improbability of a god existing.

In many ways it's like a denomination. Very few denominations are cookie cut perfect fit for a vast number of theological beliefs and stances, but certain denominations speak broadly to a person's position.

 

[bhsmte]

The PhD has said about herself: "The more correct term is agnostic, but I am atheist." in the video:

How compatible is following contradiction in any atheist:

1. Atheism in an atheist says "God does not exist. Period.", but
2. Agnosticism in an atheist says: "Possibly there is God."

How can a logical human step from "currently there is no globally accepted academic proof for God" into "there is no God"? Would it more logical for atheist to say "I am agnostic, but hope that there is no God"?

Whether I call myself an atheist, or agnostic towards a certain God, depends on the definition of the God being proposed.

Since Christianity makes specific claims about their God, I can take those claims and overlay them, with the well evidenced realities in the world and universe we live in. When I do so, I can not reconcile the Christian God existing and don't believe this God exists.

Now, when one talks about a non-personal God, that is not well defined, I would call myself agnostic.

 

[DaisyDay]

Actually he’s kinda right for saying it.

Biblically “god” is not exclusive to supernatural beings, but more to describe someone of high authority over others, so judges, rulers, priest for examples were also called “gods”. So yes everyone have a god. Its a matter of authority.

So do babies have one, on my end yes. Whether they esteem them as Editsuch is another matter. There’s also such a thing as false gods, someone or something that is esteem as god but is not. That can range as something made up to a real person.

But even among the true gods like kings and rulers, you have the King of kings and Lord of lords,God. That why God said “there should be no other gods before me”, because He is the ultimate authority.

But again, his explanation makes atheism abstract.

So what god does an atheist hermit on a desert island have?

Are you seriously contending that kings and rulers - Queen Elisabeth and Donald Trump, for instance - are gods?

 

[salt-n-light]

So what god does an atheist hermit on a desert island have?

Are you seriously contending that kings and rulers - Queen Elisabeth and Donald Trump, for instance - are gods?

The atheist would have himself as his own god, if he was rejecting the ultimate authority God, because then he would see himself to be the authority over his life.

And based on biblical definition of a god, yes they would be considered, or it would at least wouldn’t be out of whack to refer to them as a god during those times.On today’s definition, no. We think the term of god now strictly reserved for a highly spiritual being or divine.But that wasn’t the case in the Bible.

There’s a few references of it but the most pronounced is when Jesus referred to the Jewish Leaders as “gods” in John 10:34. I believe the Greek Word is “theos” meaning “god” but more towards calling one mighty as oppose to divine authority. So it’s just stating their high position in society. But doesn’t automatically mean divine authority.

Some of the leaders , some of them wanted to see them as someone ultimate or divine. They wanted to be worshipped. Some people worship their own selfs. That would be idolatry.

 

[bhsmte]

The atheist would have himself as his own god, if he was rejecting the ultimate authority God, because then he would see himself to be the authority over his life.

And based on biblical definition of a god, yes they would be considered, or it would at least wouldn’t be out of whack to refer to them as a god during those times.On today’s definition, no. We think the term of god now strictly reserved for a highly spiritual being or divine.But that wasn’t the case in the Bible.

There’s a few references of it but the most pronounced is when Jesus referred to the Jewish Leaders as “gods” in John 10:34. I believe the Greek Word is “theos” meaning “god” but more towards calling one mighty as oppose to divine authority. So it’s just stating their high position in society. But doesn’t automatically mean divine authority.

Some of the leaders , some of them wanted to see them as someone ultimate or divine. They wanted to be worshipped. Some people worship their own selfs. That would be idolatry.

That's funny, I don't see myself as a God.

I know you need to believe that though and it is really, quite amusing.

 

[salt-n-light]

That's funny, I don't see myself as a God.

I know you need to believe that though and it is really, quite amusing.

I don’t need to believe anything about you. My job is to just to give the message and let you be.

But you asked so I answered.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don’t need to believe anything about you. My job is to just to give the message and let you be.

But you asked so I answered.

What's the message? That you know what we believe better than we do? Not interested.

 

[salt-n-light]

What's the message? That you know what we believe better than we do? Not interested.

No it wasn’t, it was just answering a question.Which is why I came to ask the questions I asked, for clarification on what agnostic atheism is. To learn and share.

But so far I got more side insults and questions than answers. And the answers from several have some conflict so far. An atheist just told me in this thread that everyone have a god. Someone else telling me some binary stuff. It makes it sound abstract.

That’s all I’m saying, just tryna understand.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you believe us when we say we have no gods?