Atheists or Agnostics?

[Freodin]

This question comes up quite often.

To believe in true dogmatic atheism one must profess virtual omniscience in all areas to be certain that God does not exist. This is quite foolish.

Yet, I see this CF faith(less) icon floating around the forums.

I bet the vast majority (if not all) of these supposed atheists are actually masked agnostics. Why are they afraid to call themselves agnostics?

(Original post here)

I´m not interested in dealing with the differences between these positions right now.

I want to understand the motivation behind this question.

Why do Christians try to redefine an opposite´s position, only to evade the term "atheist"?

 

[Mcygee]

I don't think Christians do. I think some Christians do. But then again there are a wide variety of opinions within the Christian community just like any other.

Perhaps because to so many of us the evidence of God is so profound some just cannot understand how somebody could say that God doesn't exist at all. And perhaps some Christians believe that an agnostic would claim atheism simply to not be criticized by others. I couldn't say for sure. Just some thoughts.

 

[Chesterton]

It's the atheists who have been trying to redefine atheism in order to exclude the idea that atheism is a belief.

 

[ebia]

We're all inclined to simplify a position in order to address it. Sometimes that simplification is oversimplification. And the fact that many words are not well defined or univocal contributes to that.

 

[Key]

Why do Christians try to redefine an opposite´s position, only to evade the term "atheist"?

We don't. We are trying to pin it down. Atheist tend to try and make the term very fluid and that just means you're hiding something.

God Bless

 

[razeontherock]

OP: I agree with your basic premise, that for C's to pretend an atheist declares "omniscience" to form their atheism is ... silly. No moreso than any of us would claim "omniscience" as the basis for our Faith.

I do think a true atheistic stance requires FAR more Faith than I have though. And I do agree that most professed atheists are probably really agnostic, at least as I understand the terms.

 

[Jig]

It's the atheists who have been trying to redefine atheism in order to exclude the idea that atheism is a belief.

I agree.

 

[Freodin]

Hm...

I qoute myself from my response to the original thread, started by Jig.

"Perhaps a more precise expression would be "taking into consideration all information available to me, and taking into account all reasonings, based on these informations and my personal interpretations, I hold these statement to be..."

This is what I would call "belief". Perhaps you all have a different interpretation of that term... if so, I would like to know it.

So that should deal with the accusation that atheists trying to redefine atheism to exclude belief.

As for "pinning it down", I can only refer you to the response by Eudamonist, from the same thread.
The distinction he makes is the one that most atheists I know, from here or elsewhere, make: atheism is a position on belief. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. I myself have made this clarification before and will most certainly do so again. It is not a new position or made up on the spot. It has come up as often as the question was raised.

As for the "atheists are propably really agnostics"... that may come from this misunderstood distinction - that even most self-professed agnostics make: that agnosticism is some kind of "lesser" or "weaker" atheism. Lesser or weaker in what regard is beyond me.

And regarding the "true atheistic stance requires FAR more Faith"... well, I´d say it is quite difficult to measure "faith". But atheism is a position of disbelief... and I don´t think it takes much faith to state: "No, sorry, THIS I don´t believe."

That takes us back to my original question, which I don´t see answered.

I am an atheist. I state "I don´t believe in God, yours or anyones." I never hid that, or denied that... nor do I know any other person who calls himself "atheist" who would do that.
So even if there was a gradual difference between atheism and agnosticism, not a qualitative one... what would you have gained by stating "Ah, you aren´t! You are only an agnostic!" I would still not believe in God.

Perhaps we should change the object of the disbelief in question. Certainly there are a lot of things that you all don´t believe in. Say, gnomes. You don´t believe that gnomes come out at night to shine your shoes. Could you be called an "agnomist"? Would you agree that, based on your lack of omniscience, it would still be possible that those pesky little magic gnomes could exist and shine your shoes if they were so inclined? Would you admit that it might be impossible to know, considering their magical abilities to hide themselves? Wouldn´t you then be a gnome-agnostic also?


And just a last comment for that evening: considering that this topic really comes up almost constantly, and that the answers to that topic are almost identically in all instances... wouldn´t it be a lot more profitable to simply ASK what atheists mean with their terms instead of telling them what they really actually mean?
After all, I don´t go round and tell Christians what they should really actually call themselves either.

 

[Chesterton]

I am an atheist. I state "I don´t believe in God, yours or anyones."

If you don't believe there are any gods, then logically that has to mean you believe there are no gods. It's that simple, and that's what the word atheism has traditionally meant.

And just a last comment for that evening: considering that this topic really comes up almost constantly, and that the answers to that topic are almost identically in all instances... wouldn´t it be a lot more profitable to simply ASK what atheists mean with their terms instead of telling them what they really actually mean?
After all, I don´t go round and tell Christians what they should really actually call themselves either.

Wouldn't it be a lot more profitable if we use words according to their accepted common usage? That way, I don't have to ask someone what they mean by a word, we'll both already know. We can't have meaningful conversations if we use different definitions for the same word. I don't care about any word particularly, atheists can call themselves "smarts" or "pretties" or whatever you want, but just remember we have to have a word for someone who holds the belief that there is no God.

 

[razeontherock]

Several worthwhile points here. First, the Truth DOES make me fret. And fret more quickly and accurately! Musician joke, sorry ...

"Perhaps a more precise expression would be "taking into consideration all information available to me, and taking into account all reasonings, based on these informations and my personal interpretations, I hold these statement to be..."

This is what I would call "belief". Perhaps you all have a different interpretation of that term... if so, I would like to know it.

That's reasonable. Please don't confuse mere belief with Christian Faith.

So that should deal with the accusation that atheists trying to redefine atheism to exclude belief.

Good to see this level of honesty, from you. Much of my early involvement on the NCR forum (now CWR) was on this very topic, and I repeatedly saw atheists excluding belief from their definition, which just makes no sense to me.

As for "pinning it down", I can only refer you to the response by Eudamonist, from the same thread.
The distinction he makes is the one that most atheists I know, from here or elsewhere, make: atheism is a position on belief. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge.

Enter To Hold Nothing's term, "apatheistic." Which I take to mean flat out does not care. So change my vote to most professed atheists are apatheists. If you care one way or the other, fairly soon you will likely form an opinion, even if you don't have sufficient information. Closure and cognitive dissonance usually assure this much.

And regarding the "true atheistic stance requires FAR more Faith"... well, I´d say it is quite difficult to measure "faith".

From your side of the equation it would be impossible.

But atheism is a position of disbelief... and I don´t think it takes much faith to state: "No, sorry, THIS I don´t believe."

So what is the word for one who (supposedly) KNOWS there is no God? I have a tough time use the agnostic label for that.

You don´t believe that gnomes come out at night to shine your shoes.

Now you tell me?!?

Could you be called an "agnomist"?

No, I'm Ray. Not an animist. Animism is just silly. And ya doesn't have to call me Mr Johnston either

wouldn´t it be a lot more profitable to simply ASK what atheists mean with their terms instead of telling them what they really actually mean?
After all, I don´t go round and tell Christians what they should really actually call themselves either.

Splendid! The Gentleman Atheist to the white courtesy phone ...

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The whole situation only gets more complicated when we bring in terms that could be said to clarify some of the difficulties. Atheism should be properly qualified as the basic position of not believing in God as a natural initial state, that is, of children in particular when speaking of basic human states of belief or lack thereof.

In short, the distinction in mature adults is now between contratheist and antitheist, although there are other options, but I wouldn't call them as strictly nontheistic, in the negation of theism itself. With contratheism you are making the assertion in some way that God doesn't exist, whereas with antitheism, you assert that God belief is something that ought not to be in some way or is innately negative.

With agnosticism, there seem to be an equally diverse number of positions. There is general skepticism, where you could be said to be straddling the fence between belief and disbelief based on varied evidence. But then there's the inverse in apatheism, where the question of God's existence or nonexistence has no bearing whatsoever and is a meaningless endeavor.

And then there are those that inquire about the coherence and general meaningfulness of theological language, what are called either theological noncognitivists or ignostics (a term coined roughly in the late 90s from what I'm aware by Rabbi Sherwin Wine). With this in mind, we have the qualifications down much more.

With agnosticism proper as it is understood more commonly now, we have a similar issue with the questions above about the coherence of the God concept; focusing instead on the question of whether we can be said to actually know God. This position, however, is applicable potentially to both theists and nontheists, since theism and nontheism are about belief or disbelief, whereas agnosticism or gnosticism are about the possibility of one knowing the existence of God.

There's my start on this topic

 

[jacks]

I see it more simplistically (Too simplistically?)

Agnostic = I don't know if God exists.
Atheist = I know god doesn't exist.
Theist = I know God does exists.

It really comes down to how we think/feel we "Know" something, but that is a separate question.

To answer the original OP, people are often feel threatened by those who beliefs are different, so they try to deny a completely opposite knowledge system. Perhaps it shakes their own confidence? Note: this goes both ways, it is not only a Christian thing; many atheists feel threatened by Christian beliefs too. Also I would add that this is not true for the majority of either group.

 

[JasperJackson]

To the OP:

When I'm talking to non-Christians I want them to stop believing what they do believe and start believing in Christ. As part of that I'll try and shake their current belief system and try and show it to be unreliable.

Having said that, I, and other Christians can tend to get bogged down in semantic definitions about words, which, even if we agreed on their definitions, wouldn't bring anyone closer to Christ.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It's not just semantics, so much as culturally relevant qualifications about the ideas surrounding belief and disbelief that make the distinctions of contratheism, antitheism and nontheism just for one set of threes I brought up

 

[JasperJackson]

Thought of another reason why Christians do this...

The sin of pride. Sometimes we want to be right and seen to be right.

 

[razeontherock]

LOL - One of the main reasons I post here is so I can see where I'm wrong

 

[Key]

wouldn´t it be a lot more profitable to simply ASK what atheists mean with their terms instead of telling them what they really actually mean?

In reality, I would rather all atheist agree on what it means, then I need to have to ask each one of you what it means.

As I said, it seems Atheist make this tewrm very fluid, which means to me:

1: your hiding something

-or-

2: You all are unable to come to a conclusion on what this term actually means, which, as far as I am concerned, is pathetic.

-or-

3: Self proclaimed message board Atheist have become too mentally lazy to find proper clairfication for their own stand and have begin to use the term Atheist to self identify with no idea what it really is supposed to mean.

I suppose if you can give me another option, I am more then willing to listen, but, a term like "Atheist" should have a definition, don't you agree?

Just like Christian.

God Bless

 

[JasperJackson]

And just a last comment for that evening: considering that this topic really comes up almost constantly, and that the answers to that topic are almost identically in all instances... wouldn´t it be a lot more profitable to simply ASK what atheists mean with their terms instead of telling them what they really actually mean?
After all, I don´t go round and tell Christians what they should really actually call themselves either.

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah, that's what my previous response to this was trying to say. I do think we opened a can of worms w/ Key's dictionary definition of Christian, that one could really blow up in our face ...

 

[Freodin]

If you don't believe there are any gods, then logically that has to mean you believe there are no gods.

I agree. I never understood the distinction that some atheists try to make between "I don´t believe that" and "I believe that not".

It's that simple, and that's what the word atheism has traditionally meant.

And I haven´t tried to make it say something else. So why not accept it as a description of my position and instead exchange it for "agnosticism"?

Wouldn't it be a lot more profitable if we use words according to their accepted common usage? That way, I don't have to ask someone what they mean by a word, we'll both already know. We can't have meaningful conversations if we use different definitions for the same word. I don't care about any word particularly, atheists can call themselves "smarts" or "pretties" or whatever you want, but just remember we have to have a word for someone who holds the belief that there is no God.

Well, that would be "a lot more profitable". But obviously, not everyone agrees on the "accepted common usage", as evidenced by the reactions of some (Christian) posters here on this thread.
In reality, there isn´t one "accepted common usage" - there is a broad spectrum of "accepted common usages". And in order to debate meaningfully, we should start to make sure that we use compatible ones.
Asking for what your opponents mean is usually the best method to do that... in contrast to assuming.