Atheist or agnostic?

[Elioenai26]

This question is for atheists and agnostics.

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

 

[juvenissun]

One has no question. One has question.
But both do not understand.

 

[KCfromNC]

What about people who use both labels?

 

[Danyc]

Atheists lack a belief in deities or find the truth claims concerning the existence of deities made by humans to be lacking. That is where most of the non-religious here fall, including myself.

However, I do not know for certain- this would be impossible- some deities are posited to exist outside of space and time. In this way I am an agnostic atheist. I suspect most of the atheists here are as well.

 

[SithDoughnut]

This question is for atheists and agnostics.

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

I'm an agnostic atheist. I chose agnostic because I do not believe that God existence is knowable (due to lack of definition), and I chose atheist because I am not a theist.

I'm also ignostic - which I do not consider to be mutually exclusive to atheism or agnosticism - and apatheistic, so I get to use all the labels.

 

[quatona]

This question is for atheists and agnostics.

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

I´m both: I don´t believe in any of the god concepts I have been presented, and I am aware that unfalsifiable claims can not be falsified.
I do maintain, however, that certain god concepts are demonstrably inaccurate (e.g. due to being self-contradictory or logically impossible).

On another note, I am wondering why there are so few self-professing agnostic theists, particularly since/when "faith" plays an important role in their epistemological approach.

 

[Blayz]

and apatheistic

Mutually exclusive with posting on this board, IMHO.

 

[Gadarene]

This question is for atheists and agnostics.

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

One is about knowledge of gods (a-gnostic), one is about belief in gods (a-theism). Two different things.

Also, agnostic atheists exist.

 

[hollyda]

I am an agnostic atheist.

For agnostic: The root word gnosis pertains to knowledge

For atheist: The root word theist pertains to belief in a deity

The prefix "a" means "not/without."

The word agnostic, then, means "not having knowledge."

The word atheist, then, means "not having belief."

Put it together:

"I don't know whether god(s) exist, but I do not believe they do."

The first part of this statement makes me agnostic. The second part makes me an atheist.

It's just a matter of knowing how words and their meanings work.

 

[Davian]

This question is for atheists and agnostics.

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

Were you not aware that the terms are not mutually exclusive?

I don't use either label to describe myself.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Mutually exclusive with posting on this board, IMHO.

There's a difference between discussing arguments about God and religion and caring about whether people believe or not. I like disassembling and messing about with logical arguments - apologetics is a nice topic to do it with because it is too vague a concept to have any definite answers, meaning that you can play with semantics as much as you want.

Besides, most of the topics on this board have little to do with the actual question of God's existence. It is, after all, against the rules to discuss such things in all but a few sections, and those sections are entirely populated by those who already believe in God.

 

[Elioenai26]

Excellent responses ladies and gentlemen.

Now, to my next question:

Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

This seems like a painfully obvious answer, but it was brought to my attention that atheists are not necessarily naturalistic in their understanding of reality.

Are there any supernaturalistic atheists present?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

I am of the opinion that, by definition, everything that exists must be natural. If anything that people consider to be supernatural exists, that shows that we simply don't understand the full extent of natural laws.

 

[hollyda]

Excellent responses ladies and gentlemen.

Now, to my next question:

Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

This seems like a painfully obvious answer, but it was brought to my attention that atheists are not necessarily naturalistic in their understanding of reality.

Are there any supernaturalistic atheists present?

I clung to believing in the supernatural until I realized there wasn't any logic or evidence behind it. In all honesty, I wanted to believe there was something more out there (just as I clung to my Christian upbringing until I no longer could).

I am a naturalist through and through.

 

[Gadarene]

Methodological naturalism. The whole ickyness of classifying things as natural/supernatural aside, I see no evidence for the supernatural, so I operate on the basis that it is not there, although I could be wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are an atheist, why have you chosen the designating term "atheist" as opposed to "agnostic".

If you are agnostic, why have you chosen the word "agnostic", as opposed to atheist?

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

I happen to be naturalistic in my understanding of reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Excellent responses ladies and gentlemen.
Now, to my next question:
Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

I don´t know what to make of the term "supernatural", in the first place. It seems to be merely an ex-negativo which - in its generic definition - doesn´t point to anything conceivable. IOW I would have to know the criteria by which to reliably differenciate between "natural" and "supernatural".

Would e.g. a thought be "natural" or "supernatural", for purposes of your question?

 

[Davian]

Excellent responses ladies and gentlemen.

Now, to my next question:

Are all of you naturalistic in your understanding of reality. Or are some of you supernaturalists?

This seems like a painfully obvious answer, but it was brought to my attention that atheists are not necessarily naturalistic in their understanding of reality.

Are there any supernaturalistic atheists present?

What do you mean by "supernatural"?

I worked with a fellow that had no use for gods or religion, but thought it perfectly natural to believe that all living things had a form of energy that persisted beyond the creature's physical death.

Is not the word just a construct, a place to put things to explain why they cannot be evidenced, by those that cannot provide that evidence?

 

[Paradoxum]

I would say I am an atheist because I lack belief in God. I would rather attach the label of Humanist to myself though.

I don't believe in gods, spirits, fate, luck, magic, or an afterlife. I'm not sure if that answers whether I believe in the supernatural. What do you mean by the supernatural?

 

[Elioenai26]

I don´t know what to make of the term "supernatural", in the first place. It seems to be merely an ex-negativo which - in its generic definition - doesn´t point to anything conceivable. IOW I would have to know the criteria by which to reliably differenciate between "natural" and "supernatural".

Would e.g. a thought be "natural" or "supernatural", for purposes of your question?

What do you mean by "supernatural"?

I worked with a fellow that had no use for gods or religion, but thought it perfectly natural to believe that all living things had a form of energy that persisted beyond the creature's physical death.

Is not the word just a construct, a place to put things to explain why they cannot be evidenced, by those that cannot provide that evidence?

I think the question is very straightforward and rather simple as well as intelligible.

Everyone so far has given a simple, concise answer except the two of you.

So let me make it simple for you:

If I were to ask you: "how did the world come to be as it is today and how do you account for the approximately 7 billion homo sapiens that populate it?"

Would you appeal to an explanation that is natural in nature I.e. the theory of evolution by natural selection or one that is beyond or transcendent over the natural I.e. God ir gods?