The Atheist Asks #9: For Clarity

[HitchSlap]

Atheist speaks to beliefs. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge.

I consider my self an agnostic atheistic. I don't know that there is a god. I don't believe deities exist.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's not that hard people.

I don't believe that gods exist. I am not saying that they definitely don't exist, but there are people who do say gods do exist and more specifically, that a God exists. All I am saying is that I do not believe the people who say gods do exist.

 

[Cearbhall]

Are you saying an atheist is someone that eventually will believe in God?

No, it just means that atheism is a conclusion, not a defensive standpoint or a sign that someone is in denial. I'm an agnostic atheist because I recognize that I can't actually disprove the existence of a deity, but I'm still confident enough in my reasoning to conclude that deities probably don't exist.

If you replace "God" with another concept, I think the position becomes clearer: If a leprechaun were to jump out in front of me and I didn't have reason to believe that I'd been drugged or something like that, I would suddenly believe in leprechauns. My sudden change of heart would not, however, indicate that my reasoning was faulty before.

I would accept compelling evidence if it were presented to me. My conclusion is based on observations and knowledge and could therefore change if I encountered new evidence.

 

[Joshua260]

atheist: "without god"
atheism: "without theism"
typical definition of atheist: one who lacks belief in deities
strong/positive atheist: takes the stance there are no deities
weak/negative atheist: lacks belief in deities but doesn't state "there are no deities"

Thoughts ?

Traditionally, there were only three categories, as shown in the Oxford dictionary.

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

My thoughts? Honestly, I believe this recent popular trend to reclassify agnostics into the atheist camp is just a lame attempt to inflate atheist numbers in society. I see no practical reason to invent the category of "gnostic atheist" (except to justify the creation of a "weak atheist" and bring in more agnostics) since they don't exist and are more imaginary than the tooth fairy.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Traditionally, there were only three categories, as shown in the Oxford dictionary.

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

My thoughts? Honestly, I believe this recent popular trend to reclassify agnostics into the atheist camp is just a lame attempt to inflate atheist numbers in society. I see no practical reason to invent the category of "gnostic atheist" (except to justify the creation of a "weak atheist" and bring in more agnostics) since they don't exist and are more imaginary than the tooth fairy.

Gnosticism makes no claim on the existence of God or gods existing. So agnostics can be atheist and I venture to say most of the time are. They hold the null position which is by design not holding the belief. Making them atheist.

 

[TillICollapse]

Traditionally, there were only three categories, as shown in the Oxford dictionary.

Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

My thoughts? Honestly, I believe this recent popular trend to reclassify agnostics into the atheist camp is just a lame attempt to inflate atheist numbers in society. I see no practical reason to invent the category of "gnostic atheist" (except to justify the creation of a "weak atheist" and bring in more agnostics) since they don't exist and are more imaginary than the tooth fairy.

I've seen arguments amongst atheists/agnostics as to whether or not the other is actually an atheist or agnostic. The Scotsman gene runs through humanity as a whole, it seems, and isn't for believers only.

The issue is typically something like this:

Atheist: "I lack belief in gods, but I don't claim there ARE no gods. I just lack belief there are any. But I can't prove a negative either, and I realize that. Just as I can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter."
Agnostic: "So you're not an atheist then, because you admit there *could* be a deity. So you're really an agnostic."
Atheist: "No I'm an atheist."
etc etc.

or it looks like this:

Agnostic: "I don't know if it's possible to even know if there are gods or not. I don't know if there are any, and I don't believe anyone else does either at this point."
Atheist: "So do you currently believe there are any deities that you recognize as existing ?"
Agnostic: "No."
Atheist: "Then you're not an agnostic, you're an atheist."
Agnostic: "No I'm an agnostic."
etc etc.

 

[TillICollapse]

Gnosticism makes no claim on the existence of God or gods existing. So agnostics can be atheist and I venture to say most of the time are. They hold the null position which is by design not holding the belief. Making them atheist.

When you keep saying "Gnosticism" do you really mean to be saying "agnosticism" ?

 

[Joshua260]

I've seen arguments amongst atheists/agnostics as to whether or not the other is actually an atheist or agnostic. The Scotsman gene runs through humanity as a whole, it seems, and isn't for believers only.

The issue is typically something like this:

Atheist: "I lack belief in gods, but I don't claim there ARE no gods. I just lack belief there are any. But I can't prove a negative either, and I realize that. Just as I can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter."
Agnostic: "So you're not an atheist then, because you admit there *could* be a deity. So you're really an agnostic."
Atheist: "No I'm an atheist."
etc etc.

or it looks like this:

Agnostic: "I don't know if it's possible to even know if there are gods or not. I don't know if there are any, and I don't believe anyone else does either at this point."
Atheist: "So do you currently believe there are any deities that you recognize as existing ?"
Agnostic: "No."
Atheist: "Then you're not an agnostic, you're an atheist."
Agnostic: "No I'm an agnostic."
etc etc.

I basically agree with your response here.
If we went back to the traditional definitions I provided earlier, there wouldn't be a problem.

Personally, I have no problem with an atheist who claims to have a lack of belief...in other words, they have seen evidence, but are not convinced yet...they "do not believe in god". But once they start putting forth positive arguments against the existence of God, I think they have moved over into the "believe there is no god" definition and they have taken on a burden of proof to back up their claim.

But I also have an issue with this loose interpretation of "lacking a belief" when people try to apply it to babies and such and call them atheists also. If that was a valid interpretation, then they could count rocks, trees, etc. as atheists too. It's just like politicians who count the dead as constituents.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

When you keep saying "Gnosticism" do you really mean to be saying "agnosticism" ?

When I say Gnosticism I'm referring to both the Gnostic and Agnostic position.

 

[bhsmte]

This is pretty much why I fell away from faith and I quote myself here:

"I became an atheist when I could no longer reconcile reality and my faith. I could no longer struggle to bend one around the other ..."

This is well stated.

I was the same way when I simply could no longer reconcile the Christian story with reality.

People get to a breaking point that is best described this way;

Is it more painful to keep denying reality, or is it more painful to give up your faith belief?

 

[Joshua260]

When I say Gnosticism I'm referring to both the Gnostic and Agnostic position.

So you don't mean the gnostic religions?

Gnosticism: describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world – which they viewed as created by the demiurge – and embraced the spiritual world

 

[TillICollapse]

Personally, I have no problem with an atheist who claims to have a lack of belief...in other words, they have seen evidence, but are not convinced yet...they "do not believe in god".

Atheism isn't necessarily based on what evidence one has or hasn't seen. It can be obviously, but that is not a necessary component to make one an "atheist" if they so choose to identify that way.

But once they start putting forth positive arguments against the existence of God, I think they have moved over into the "believe there is no god" definition and they have taken on a burden of proof to back up their claim.

In general, I would view someone asserting there are no gods as making a negative claim and technically speaking, it would be reasonable to ask them for evidence for their claim. However it would typically be fruitless, as you're asking them to prove a negative and essentially rely upon absence of evidence. Which practically speaking is often fine, but literally ... taken to extremes it's impossible to do. For any theist to view this as a "win" or some such however ... man lol.

But I also have an issue with this loose interpretation of "lacking a belief" when people try to apply it to babies and such and call them atheists also. If that was a valid interpretation, then they could count rocks, trees, etc. as atheists too. It's just like politicians who count the dead as constituents.

I'm not going to get into the default position argument. I've participated in that rodeo on occasion, but not tonight

When I say Gnosticism I'm referring to both the Gnostic and Agnostic position.

Hmm. I don't think I've ever heard Gnosticism refer to both positions. If that's a thing, it's completely new to me. Can you show where you are getting the idea that Gnosticism also refers to agnosticism or that gnosticism doesn't make any claims on the existence of gods existing ? In my experience and the way I've seen the term gnosticism used, it is typically in regards to someone who DOES believe in some form of deities existing (although I'm not that read concerning gnostics, perhaps there is a form you are referencing I'm unfamiliar with).

In my mind, using the term gnosticism to also refer to agnosticism is like using the term theism to also refer to atheism ... it doesn't compute. I've not known anyone who would say, "Theism doesn't make any claims about deities, because the atheist lacks belief in deities," etc. That's why there are two different words to describe the two different positions lol: theist, atheist. Theism DOES involve belief in at least one deity. I thought gnostics did as well.

So can you explain where you got the use of the term gnosticism like that to also refer to the agnostic position ? I'm a bit confused by it, but I don't want to say you've missed the boat on something just yet in case I'm simply not aware of something you're referencing.

 

[Joshua260]

However it would typically be fruitless, as you're asking them to prove a negative and essentially rely upon absence of evidence.

And hence why I said that I don't believe there is such a thing as a "gnostic atheist". No one can know that God does not exist. The only reason that category exists is so that atheists can create the "weak atheist" category, which is essentially the traditional agnostic, and thus claim inflated numbers.

 

[TillICollapse]

And hence why I said that I don't believe there is such a thing as a "gnostic atheist". No one can know that God does not exist. The only reason that category exists is so that atheists can create the "weak atheist" category, which is essentially the traditional agnostic, and thus claim inflated numbers.

Do you believe one can know that God does exist ?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Hmm. I don't think I've ever heard Gnosticism refer to both positions. If that's a thing, it's completely new to me. Can you show where you are getting the idea that Gnosticism also refers to agnosticism or that gnosticism doesn't make any claims on the existence of gods existing ? In my experience and the way I've seen the term gnosticism used, it is typically in regards to someone who DOES believe in some form of deities existing (although I'm not that read concerning gnostics, perhaps there is a form you are referencing I'm unfamiliar with).

Gnosticism (in this context) is the claim of the knowledge of gods existing being obtainable. So it's not claiming if gods exist or not, it's claiming that a human being can even know such a thing (or not)

In my mind, using the term gnosticism to also refer to agnosticism is like using the term theism to also refer to atheism ... it doesn't compute.

Sure it does, but you have to flip it. Gnosticism is the parent term to Agnosticism. Theism is the parent term for Atheism.

When discussing theism, Atheism can be entirely left out of the conversation. But when discussing Atheism you're still discussing theism, but from a negative position.

So in my mind: When I'm discussing Gnostics and Agnostics, I am discussing the view of Gnosticism whether I'm talking about a gnostic or an agnostic. All it is is Positive or Negative.

Same as when I'm discussing Atheists and Theists, I am discussing the views on theism.

It works as a blanket term. When discussing the antithesis of something you can almost never leave out the thesis. Which is why I pair the gnostic and agnostic view under gnosticism. They're both born from the same subject.

 

[quatona]

And hence why I said that I don't believe there is such a thing as a "gnostic atheist". No one can know that God does not exist.

Irrelevant. The label is about their position, not about the accuracy of their position. IOW: Even if their position is/were untenable, there are people who hold this position.

The only reason that category exists is so that atheists can create the "weak atheist" category, which is essentially the traditional agnostic, and thus claim inflated numbers.

In my view, all these terms exist because (some) theists attempt to ascribe fringe positions to all non-believers.
Fortunately, we can easily give our positions regarding gods without a label, since it takes not more than one or two sentences to outline it clearly.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

And hence why I said that I don't believe there is such a thing as a "gnostic atheist". No one can know that God does not exist.

That's my point. That's why I said the position is erroneous. And you can be both of those things. But for someone to say they KNOW that gods can or can not exist and take up the negative stance in effect are still atheist, but at the same time aren't because it's no longer a belief or lack of in gods, it's a solid claim of knowledge that they do not exist. Like the claim of gravity existing. Nobody has a belief gravity exists, they just KNOW gravity exists.

It's very gray and hard to define. I'm not sure how one can honestly hold that position. But some people do. I'd advise against it, but people will be who they are

The only reason that category exists is so that atheists can create the "weak atheist" category, which is essentially the traditional agnostic, and thus claim inflated numbers.

Agnostic is not a claim to theism. And someone who only identifies themselves as agnostic is technically undecided and thus does not hold the belief. Therefore ---> Atheist by default.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Just wondering, the innatist Chomsky says we have an innate language acquisition device (LAD), and interactionists add we have a social support system (LASS) in learning how to speak. This is about learning and acquiring language.

People are thought by some to have religious instincts? Because religion is pretty much universal across cultures, through history and across the world etc.

People have argued for a morality support system too (MASS).

Belief in God(s) seems at least to be cognitively possible, so could we have a RAD and RASS? Religion acquisition device and support.

I would say it is technically easier to raise a child as a theist rather than an atheist, because to be a (proper) atheist you have to have an understanding of the God concept-experience in order to take a stance on it. Atheism is the harder concept to get.

Atheism again. So long as its about the mere "the absense of faith" I think that maybe skews the picture, especially for children. If we have a RASS, MASS and RASS then these are probably interwoven. a

Hence, a lot of moral teachings, which would be acceptable to humanistic secularists, like the golden rule etc, would also be inputted or nurtured via these methods, but in an "alien tongue" or sinfulness, divine command etc to the atheist childs version of events.

Personally I believed in peace and social justice as a child, and thought that reigion was stupid, dumb, irrational. It just so happens that I am sometimes more Catholic than the Pope himself.

Get me?

 

[single eye]

Grimm, You chose to become atheist, others chose apathy, why the difference?

 

[Cearbhall]

I see no practical reason to invent the category of "gnostic atheist" (except to justify the creation of a "weak atheist" and bring in more agnostics) since they don't exist and are more imaginary than the tooth fairy.

I don't see how it's a recent trend. Gnostic/agnostic and atheist/theist have always been two different measures, by definition. The former is a knowledge claim and the latter is a conclusion. There are four possible combinations. "Atheist" by itself says nothing about whether a person thinks he or she can disprove deities.