Athiest or Agnostic: What does it really mean?

Zulu

Hello folks,
this is coming out of a different thread, but I noticed someone calling themselves athiest but describing themselves as agnostic. I know it's just a name, but in the spirit of clarity, I understood:

Atheist does not believe in god.
Believer (naturally) does.
Agnostic isn't sure either way.

The difference being in the belief - is that others understanding? Am I wrong?

Jeebus H Christ

That's pretty much it...although an agnostic may argue that there is no way of either proving or disproving the existence of "God", hence to assume either the position of theist/deist or atheist is not rational, as neither is based on fact.

Zombrex

How people use the terms depends a lot on how they use the terms "know" and "certain"

From a rational position it is impossible to know for certain anything. There is always a possibility that reality does not match what we consider is reality in our heads, no matter how sure we are that it does. For example, it is actually impossible for me to determine with certainty that the universe was created 4 seconds ago with me having all my memories implanted into my brain. That might of happened, but if it did happen I can't tell. I can say that it is very unlikely based on my understanding of the world. but I can't say it certainly didn't happen because I've no way to test that.

So when I say I'm an "atheist", that means I do not believe that God is real. That though is not the same thing as saying I'm certain God is not real. Such a position is impossible to verify and as such it is impossible for me to be certain God is not real, just as it is impossible for me to be certain dragons don't exist and that there isn't an invisible tea pot flying around Mars.

Theist seem to take a lot of comfort in that, as if it is like saying that you can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore they are fine believing in him. Its not stupid or silly or nonsensical to believe in him because we can't prove he doesn't exist. That of course is a bit of a misrepresentation of the position. Its not that God can't be proven to not exist. It is that nothing can be proven to not exist, or for that matter, exist.

I am as convinced that gods, particularly the Christian God, are simply a creation of the human imagination. I am convinced about that as I am about most other things I'm pretty certain about. To me that position makes far more sense than the idea that gods actually do exist, which to me is a completely nonsensical position to hold and throws up far more issues that it solves.

Things get a bit muddle when the term agnostic is thrown into the mix, because I know plenty of people who say that what I just described is agnosticism, and that atheism is the arrogant and unfounded belief that God's certainly do not exist.

TBH I don't really know how an agnostic fits in between theist and atheist. If I had to define an agnostic I would probably say they are someone who is open to the idea that God, or a god, exists, who doesn't rule it out, but is not convinced enough to start joining any particular religion.

That is certainly not me, I am convinced that gods do not exist, but it would be incorrect of me to claim that this is a certainty or can be demonstrated as such.

interestinguser

The problem I think you are having is that you seem to view an atheist as the same as a believer, just on the opposite side of the fence. Believer believes in God, Atheist believes there is no god. This is not necessarily the case. My atheism is not a position of belief, it's a position of non-belief. I don't say 'I belief there is no god', I would simply say I don't believe in god. It is a subtle but important difference IMO.

I don't believe in fairies. Does that make me agnostic towards them?

Zulu

eh what?
"I believe there is no god... I don't believe in god" are one and the same, unless you are talking about a specific god. (ie: I believe there is no god, is more comprehensive than I don't believe in Thor)

Jeebus H Christ

I don't think a naive philospohical position such as solipsism clarifies anything.

Tim Robbins

Zulu wrote: »

Hello folks,
this is coming out of a different thread, but I noticed someone calling themselves athiest but describing themselves as agnostic. I know it's just a name, but in the spirit of clarity, I understood:

Atheist does not believe in god.
Believer (naturally) does.
Agnostic isn't sure either way.

The difference being in the belief - is that others understanding? Am I wrong?

Be careful. The words can be used differently by different people.
Agnostic can mean:
1. I don't know if there is a God
or
2. I believe it is impossible to know if there is a God.

Atheist can mean:
1. I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for one.
or
2. I actively believe there are no Gods.

I've gone from defintion 2 of Agnostic to Atheist definition 1.

These subtle differences can cause all sorts of problems. Check the Oxford English Dictionary and you'll get one thing. Read a book on Philosophy and you'll get another.

Either way, enjoy putting yourself in a box :-)

Pompey Magnus

Zulu wrote:

this is coming out of a different thread, but I noticed someone calling themselves athiest but describing themselves as agnostic. I know it's just a name, but in the spirit of clarity, I understood:

Could it be that the poster was atheist with respect to any man-made god but agnostic when considering the possibility of some form of creative force in the Universe? Perhaps a pantheist or spinozist might be a more accurate description of their beliefs.

No atheist can claim 100% certainty that no God exists, if they do they are as mistaken as a religious person who claims to know that their God does exist. All atheists are agnostic to some degree in that there is always going to be some doubt, however what seperates an atheist from an agnostic is that the atheist would have less doubt than the agnostic.

interestinguser

"I believe there is no god... I don't believe in god" are one and the same, unless you are talking about a specific god.

No I'm afraid they are not. As I said, the difference is subtle.
Now if you are not talking about any specific god then you need to define what exactly you mean by 'god', and if you don't have a clear definition then how can anybody decide if they believe in it or otherwise?

Zulu

Can we nip the whole labels/boxes milarky before it kicks off. The point of this thread is to ascertain the correct meaning so we can use language more effectively to describe ourselves.

interestinguser

Zulu wrote: »

Can we nip the whole labels/boxes milarky before it kicks off. The point of this thread is to ascertain the correct meaning so we can use language more effectively to describe ourselves.

People always have and always will use terms differently. I'm not sure what you mean by "Can we nip the whole labels/boxes milarky before it kicks off. "?

Zulu

interestinguser wrote: »

No I'm afraid they are not. As I said, the difference is subtle.

Would you care to explain for me please. I'm missing your point so.

Now if you are not talking about any specific god then you need to define what exactly you mean by 'god', and if you don't have a clear definition then how can anybody decide if they believe in it or otherwise?

No I was being general - an atheist does not believe in a god(s).
No particular god, for if they believed in a particular god, they wouldn't be atheist.

Zulu

interestinguser wrote: »

People always have and always will use terms differently. I'm not sure what you mean by "Can we nip the whole labels/boxes milarky before it kicks off. "?

Expressions like "enjoy putting yourself in a box" (sorry didn't mean to single you out Tim) tend to have a negative connotation. I was hoping to keep this as a thread trying to define a meaning and pre-empt defensiveness.

CaptainNemo

Zulu wrote: »

eh what?
"I believe there is no god... I don't believe in god" are one and the same, unless you are talking about a specific god. (ie: I believe there is no god, is more comprehensive than I don't believe in Thor)

The two statements are actually completely different. Belief is faith. Saying "I have faith that there is no cat behind that wall" is totally different to "I have no faith that there is a cat behind that wall." In the first case, you cannot see behind the wall, but you are irrationally certain that there is no cat there. In the second case, you are simply stating that you do not have an irrational certainty that there is a cat behind the wall. You are not stating that you have an irrational certainty that there is NOT a cat there.

Neither person can see behind the wall. The second person's statement is more scientific, the first more religious. Religion specifically requires the first kind of thought (irrational certainty, faith, or superrational certainty if "irrational" sounds too negative to you). Science specifically requires the second (refusal to come to a conclusion without observation - in other words, hypothesis only becomes theory when supported by experiment).

There is no value judgment on which mode of thought is "better" since both have their field of application. But they are definitely NOT the same. In fact they could hardly be MORE different.

CaptainNemo

Since we're starting another thread discussion atheism/agnosticism I'll put in here what I put in the other "hijacked" thread :-):

I just wanted to jump in and say that I think being "sure" or not has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism.

You can self-define as an atheist, who does not believe in God (although the fact that you then have to go on and actually define what it is you do not believe in makes this tricky!). You do not have to be 100% sure.

Agnosticism is not a state of "not being sure". If I can steal the Wikipedia definition: "[Agnosticism] is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.

In other words, agnosticism is not a personal statement of "I think there's no God but I'm not sure." It's a far wider-reaching statement about the nature of knowledge itself. It says, in effect, that the question of whether or not there is a God is unknowable. It states that what we can think about is not reality, but the models of reality created by our minds, and therefore we can make no definitive statements about reality itself.

It is a specific and well-defined philosophical stance which does not confine itself to discussions of God, and is far more sophisticated than "not being sure".

interestinguser

Zulu wrote: »

Expressions like "enjoy putting yourself in a box" (sorry didn't mean to single you out Tim) tend to have a negative connotation. I was hoping to keep this as a thread trying to define a meaning and pre-empt defensiveness.

OK I get you now.

Would you care to explain for me please. I'm missing your point so.

What captionnemo said in point 14.

Zulu

I see you are saying: In the first case you are jumping to a conclusion. Fair enough.

...but in the second case, if you conclude that you do not believe that a equals b, I fail to see how stating I believe a doesn't equal b is any different ???

Dave!

Well for the sake of a label I am an atheist, but you also have to consider that (a) really it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to "know" that there is no god, so in that sense I would have to be an agnostic, and (b) there is no term for someone who does not believe in, for example, astrology, so the word 'atheist' is redundant in a sense, save for the purpose of labelling or grouping.

Functionally, I am an atheist, and for the sake of simplicity I just say as much if I'm asked.

stereoroid

Here's an older thread that may be useful. I put together a table of the differences between the positions of agnostics, strict atheists, and weak atheists. I don't think the simple theist/agnostic/atheist definitions are flexible enough, and lead to misunderstandings and "straw man" attacks.

Example: some theists say that atheists claim "there are no gods, anywhere" - implying that they know everything going on in the whole universe. This is based on old definitions written by theists, not on what atheists themselves actually say. You don't have to make such a statement, to have no belief in the gods that theists claim belief in.

Lack of belief in religious faith does not imply a belief in nothing!

Joe1919

How about the post-modern criticism of binary thinking?
What I am supposing here is that very few people are 100% either atheist or theist. There is no black or white, only shades of grey. The most religious theist has some doubts about the existence of God and so does the atheist about the non-existance.. The religious theist commits himself to his belief and denies his doubts. Similarly the atheist, in his own way takes a (blind?) leap of faith in believing he is right and denying his doubts to the contrary.
The agnostic or sceptic on the other hand refuses to commit himself.
In some respects, the agnostic is the greatest non believer of all as he refuses to even believe in himself and his ability to believe. He will not even call himself a sceptic as he is sceptical about his own sceptism.

Dades

If atheism, or theism, for that matter involved having to attest 100% to the truth of either belief, then agnosticism would be the only way to go.

But a belief doesn't have to be a complete disregard for the alternative. IMO anyway.

Joe1919

It has often been suggested (traditionally) that being an agnostic or sceptic is hard work (because the mind cant automatically make a judgement) and when it comes to beliefs, the average human weighs up the practically of each side and makes a judgement.
He may have all sorts of motivations when making that judgement. He may be an "outsider" type of character and want autonomy from others and this may affect his judgement. Alternatively he may want to be like everyone else.
He sort of internalises this judgement and no longer thinks about it. This is similar to the way we learn to type or drive or play a musical instrument. A human works better this way. He no longer has to waste mental energy, he intuitively know how to type or drive or whatever.
Similarly, a lot of humans build up intuitive (gut) beliefs in their life. Many of these serve him well. They are not always right but they become his way of life. He is committed to them and is reluctant to let them go. In many respects, then, the hardened atheist is no different than the Christian in this regard. Both have committed themselves to particular beliefs and both may be reluctant to change their beliefs despite whatever evidence comes their way.
Also many people hate changing their minds because they see this as a sort of admission that they were wrong.
(There is a sort of "hysteresis" when it comes to belief)

Dades

Joe1919 wrote: »

In many respects, then, the hardened atheist is no different than the Christian in this regard. Both have committed themselves to particular beliefs and both may be reluctant to change their beliefs despite whatever evidence comes their way.

I'll remember that the day I see some evidence come my way.

Weidii

Maybe they are agnostic in the sense that they're athiest for now, but if someone came up with strong evidence for the side of religion they'd change their ways?

Joe1919

I don't know if you remember the famous "moving statue" epidemic in the eighties but many people swore they seen them move . I personally believe that the people who seen them move did believe they moved (but the statues did not actually move). Similar type clusters of belief of UFO sightings occur in America.
There is more to belief than just evidence. There is trust, commitment, contagion (& mass hysterias), wanting to comply with everyone else's beliefs etc.
Remember that belief is not knowledge and may, for some people more about what they wish.
Perhaps we overestimate how rational people really are.
Finally, is we that use labels like Christian, Atheist or Agnostic to describe ourselves(as well as others). How accurate are these descriptions of ourselves and are we just describing what we want to be rather than what we actually are.

Dades

I think the gist of what you are saying above is that people will often believe what they want to believe. I completely agree in terms of moving statues, UFOs, or the belief that we'll go to heaven when we're dead.

But it doesn't make sense applied to atheism. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods - not someone who chooses not to because that belief has more to offer than the alternative.

stereoroid

I've used the term "think agnostic, act atheist" before. To me, agnosticism means reserving judgement, sitting on the fence w.r.t. the big questions. That's fine for the world of philosophy and abstract discussion, where there are no consequences.

Out here in the real world, you have to make a choice, and put your foot down on one side or the other. There are all kinds of forces who will not permit you to remain agnostic, and will walk all over you if you do not make a stand. The obvious one, in Ireland, is the Catholic Church. They own most of the schools, and will naturally dump their loads of fear and guilt all over your children at their most vulnerable. :mad:

To reserve judgment is to refuse to use the judgment you have worked to cultivate, to surrender to the will of others who don't care about your free thoughts.

Joe1919

To go back to the title of this tread "Atheist or Agnostic: What does it really mean?" and to try to put some meaning to the words "Atheist or Agnostic", we must first of all say that both are beliefs, so I would think that before we can answer the original posters question, we must first understand what belief really means and how the word differs from "know" or "in my opinion".
Now belief can be defined as "1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
The point I want to make is that to fully understand belief, we must understand the psychology of the human in terms of "habit", "trust" "confidence" etc. There is two aspects to belief, 1. the believer (subjective) and what goes on in his mind and 2. that which is believed (object of belief).
To try to understand belief without taken the believer into account is only to look at half the picture.