IAP Political Forum

insist on grouping themselves with those who are traditionalally catagorized as agnostics (those who have not decided on a belief regarding God)?

What is the motivation for this?

It differs for people.

For me it's an attempt to shore up sloppy logic and maintain a more accurate description.  Some realize that atheism is a more shocking term and brings more attention to an issue that people tend to avoid.


One is knowledge based, the other belief based. One is based on what you know, the other on what you believe.

I know of no evidence for god, therefore, I don't believe in a god or gods.  Further, the term god is problematic at best and many concepts that approach coherency are unverifiable.

We can drop the labels entirely and discuss the issues if you wish - they don't change based on terms.  We have tried to have discussions based on the issues and we have defined our terms - something theists rarely feel the need to do, it seems.

What is your motivation for opposing it?  Why don't you accept the definition we offer and argue from there?  Where is your charity?

Maybe those of us that actually ARE agnostics don't care to be lumped with atheists.  Specially the crazed militant ones.  Ever think of that?  Where is YOUR charity?  Or your honesty?

:'(
Then you should appreciate our efforts. We are trying to establish "atheist" as the correct meaning: "A"(without)-Theism(god belief).

I can't help it if there are jerks in any group.

You are welcome to call yourself an agnostic - I don't blame you, since so far the theist side has proven their view, while atheists simply aren't waiting for them to and taking advantage of the 1,000 months we live.

Don't judge an intellectual position by its adherents. If you have no god belief, you are an atheist by definition.

You can be an agnostic atheist, and call yourself Hal.

Not looking for your permission to call myself anything. 

Theist - Sure there is a God.

Agnostic - Not sure if there is a God or not.

Atheist - Sure there is no God.

I think it is a shameful attempt to ally yourselves with agnostics in an attempt to paint theists as extremists. 

'Look!  We are reasonable.  We acknowledge he could be there.  the "agnostic atheists" do any way.  But you all are so unreasonably sure of yourselves!  We are reasonable and flexible.  You are so stubborn and parochial!' 

I am not part of your war on belief.

Perhaps you should read the Bible. ;)

Why?

It was a joke - as in, maybe if you read the Bible, you'd be on our side. wink.

It wasn't meant to be a logical argument.



I understand your point. I think you are wrong, but I understand that this is probably a fairly common view of theists and agnostics.

Your definitions alone show that you are interested in pushing your "opponents" (so to speak) into untenable positions.

How easy it would be to argue against your atheists and theists: they would cease to exist.

However, we have an opportunity to see two other categories that align very well with the greek meanings of the root words.

Theism = god belief
Atheism = without god belief

Do you agree that people of these definitons exist (regardless of the term I equate them with)?

What do you call them now? Are both agnostic? How then do you distinguish between two very real positions?


So, what would you call some one who:
believes a god or gods exist?
lacks a god belief?

I will use your terms if they are reasonable.

For somebody that was just offering to do away with labels a minute ago, you are really into them now.  And why are you insisting on only having two camps?  Is your world really that narrow?

This is a great post.  Thanks BD, I was hoping an agnostic would share their view.  Your view seems common with most agnostics I know.

I think its a question between whether you have faith or not and how that faith is defined.

So, everyone is agnostic. Why have the other terms?

It is difficult to say that anyone can be absolutely certain but recognizing uncertainty is nowhere near the same as being agnostic.  It is a phony argument. 

So my takeaway from the responses is that many atheists see the contradictions between their beliefs/conclusions and the process they claim they use to form them.  So they conflate it with the neutral position to try to hide the fact that they do form beliefs.

That is a concise and accurate summary.

Split to Inferno

I have tried many times to say that atheism is the absence of a god belief, just as some of you have an absence of an alien belief, but you reject this.

perhaps we can move on. for argument sake I will cede your point.

now, in order for you to not be sure of something you must know what that thing is. otherwise, you are speaking nonsense.

to say "i don't know if a djrhfdh exists" is nonsense. so, to call yourself agnostic when someone makes the claim of a supernatural being is outlandish, at best.

we need a description of what you are not sure exists.

"something" does not cut it, since the term 'god' implies something more specific - such as, "a being that wants you to cut off your foreskin and hates gays and people who don't believe in him" (which is an apt description of zuk).

so, please define what you don't know exists or not. and since it is the theists that make the claim, we need them to come forward and define the undefinable in order fore zuk, et al, to claim they don't know....

The idea that you need a precise definition to discuss an historically well discussed concept is incorrect.


You do yourself no real favor by attributing to me or others beliefs we do not hold.


You've been through this with me and others before.  When you did it with me, you received a definition, then claimed you still couldn't discuss it becuase the definition hadn't come with universal agreement, then you ran.

You are boring.

as I recall, u defined god as the first cause.
I don't know of many people who don't believe the universe had a cause of some sort, so I wonder why you struggle with this.
plus, I don't know many people who think of god only in this way.
its like defining an elephant as "grey".
sorry, zuk, you are a weak link.

I had a similar experience.  The Christian God is extremely well defined in scripture.  Anyone who is confused about the definition of the Christian God is being purposefully obtuse.  That person clearly has a hidden agenda.

You feel the definition is clear and yet even well-meaning Xians can't agree, or verify that their definition is correct. (Alas, it is also self-contradictory).  Some people define god as Allah, Krishna or Nature.

Who is right?  There doesn't seem to be an objective way to define god.

If i define god as "love" or "first cause" or "chunky" how does that help us?
After all, if you are willing to use "purpose" or "reason" in the same way as materialists, why call god "first cause" when we already have a fine term for that: "first cause"?

Christians can't even agree on how to interpret their own holy text, which is why half of one group of Christians hate the other half and why some sects literally consider the Pope the fucking anti-christ. It's absurd. There are so many sects because no one can come to any agreement on their own dogma.

Atheists book themselves with Agnostics just as "Strong" Christians are assosiated with "Weak" Christians.

For example...

My mother is a Christian, she doesn't literally believe most of the stuff in the bible. She doesn't read it very much, she goes to church once in a while. But she still finds some comfort in the idea as well as being part of a community, all her friends are Christian. So does she think the bible is the exact word of God? no. Does she think that Atheists are going to hell? no.
So is she a Christian? not in the sence that many on this forum are, but she still is


In this manner Atheists and Agnostics are very, very similar.

Maybe to some.  Not to the ones that I have referred to as 'evangelical' atheists.  I want nothing to do with them.  I am NOT part of their war on belief.

I think the definition of Athesit and agnostic rest on the definition of "god".


Until "god" is objectively defined we aren't talking about one thing. its irrelevent.

It is not irrelevant that many people who claim to be atheists and claim to understand what they mean and are comfortable including the term God in their definition, continue to hide the uncertainty of what they do believe and corresponding faith that covers the uncertainty by pretending that atheists and agnostics are in the same group.

No, this is the old "atheists are theists who just reject God". Or worse.

Atheists don't beleive in a god, perhaps its because the god is defined as impossible (Zeus, Yahweh, Krishna) or that it is poorly defined as to be meaningless (Neo-Xians and Agnostics).


Either way, if I define God and declare that god impossible to exist, your counter will be that you define god differently so as it can exist. THat is, you will simply declare that gods definition will always be one that makes it possible for It to exist.  That is not a definition, it is justifying your Faith with mental gymnastics.


BTW, why do you refuse to define your God? To say "its in the Bible" is just avoidance. After all, many people have read the Bible and come to different conclusions.

I Am what I am, and "Jealous" and petty, etc... :roll:

I think the motivation for this is essentially historical.  The original 'accusation' of atheism has always applied to anyone who rejected the institutions of religion (including 'deists' who usually had to be 'closet-deists' for this reason).

But nowadays, many who reject the conventional institutions of religion are called 'agnostics' (including generic 'deists', new-age pagans and equally new-age pseudo-Buddhists).   

From a political standpoint, the two viewpoints (atheists and agnostics) have much in common in their shared support for separation of church and state as an inviolate fundamental principle.

And ultimately, there are very, very few atheists who can make a solid intellectual case to rationally or logically justify their position.  That of the 'agnostic' is much easier to rationally defend for people who don't have degrees in philosophy.

Thus, the two groups (atheists and agnostics) tend to blur together (fuzzy edges) and can never really be categorical distinctions. 

Those who rejected theism were historically grouped separate from those who were undecided (agnostic).


The fact that we can tell the difference between those who reject theism and those who are undecided indicates it is not so blurry as many would like to believe.   The motivation for this has become clear to me by reading the responses.

The question that opens this thread is pointless. Atheists and agnostics are different groups that have things in common. We both question the existance of god. But atheists think/believe that god doesn't exist and agnostics don't. We can also set differences and things in common between believers and agnostics or believers and atheists.

And btw, it's not atheists who tend to group us with agnostics together, in my experience, but believers who separate themselves from agnostics and atheists. Anyway, the question is just pointless.

Can you support that with a historical reference?

For example, the founding fathers of the US include many 'closet-deists' and even an atheists or two who are always asumed, at that time, to be Christians.

Distinctions of 'agnostics' and/or 'atheists' is entirely a 20th century phenomena. 


I beg to differ.  Such a distinction is absurd. 

Almost every 'agnostic' I've ever encountered on a discussion forum is a closet-atheist.

Not according to this series made for BBC.

http://www.veoh.com/series/briefhistoryofdisbelief


But since you too recognize a difference confirms there is one.  I find it odd that first you say it is absurd and then you admit that some agnostics are agnostic.

Huh?

The two blur together all the time.  Many 'closet-atheists' put themselves forward  as 'agnostic'.  That's a simple fact that shows the 'blur'.

The two terms are distinct entities, but only to a philosopher.  To average people, the two concepts blur together and are not distinct categories.

The thread question is directed at 'common' usage, not strict philosophic definitions.

Are atheist?  My experience is that this view is only held by atheists.  Not agnostics.  It is yet another attempt by atheists to ally themselves with us agnostics in attempted bid at being closer to 'normal'.  The extremist atheists here even attempt to drag us into their war on faith and believers.  Speaking for myself, I will have no part of that.

Was this your thread originally?  Sorry, I didn't notice that.

I'm a very normal person and i'm atheist. Perhaps you want to enlighten us with your concept of "what a normal person must fulfil"?

Compared to the extremist atheists on the board.  aka - D9 and Barney and their group.  Barney actually told me in a post that I should be glad to be associated with atheists.  Ones like him, no.  Atheists in general, doesn't matter to me.

Evidently I did not make my post clear enough.  My apologies. 

Isn't that what this thread about?  Discussing how/why atheists tend to put themselves in the same camp as agnostics?

I'm only interpreting the context of the OP.  It very clearly uses the terms in their most common usage.  The OP speaks of "those who claim to be atheists".  That is not a based on any philosophic definition, rather, human self-identification is the specific context given in the OP.  Thus, the definition of the terms must be relevant to common human usage.

Frankly, most Theists I meet are really atheists. They have defined god in such a way that makes the concept of god unknowable and irrational.

Agnosticism fares no better.

Atheism is the default position and one that has never been disproven. It has also not been challenged except through force and irrationality. 

Agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism or atheism. Atheism or theism deal with the beleif in a supernatural being, whereas agnosticism deals with the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.  One can be an agnostic theist: believe in god by faith, but accept that it is impossible to know.(I submit a irrational position, but one that can be taken. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides, for example).

Huxley:
"...it is wrong for a man to say that he is cetain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.  This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism.  ...the application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgement concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty."

So, an agnostic is not only claiming that the supernatural cannot be spoken about, but that it CAN'T be spoken about - AND that without evidence, there is no need for belief.

Now, if you are agnostic and can't accept any evidence (since you believe it can't be presented), then your belief in god is likewise lacking. You lack a god belief: you are atheist.

Meanwhile, the theist can only define god INTO existence by using carefully wrought phrases to minimize the likelihood of refutation. This is not describing reality (or god) but creating a mental game in which one tries to find a few propositions that people are unable to attack and allow one to suckle on the warm pacifier of Faith.

It depends on how we're defining atheism.

If we define atheism as the belief that there is no "god", I don't fall into that category.

Some definitions state a lack of a belief in god. This reflects my position a bit more accurately.

TBH, I think you're reading more into agnosticism than is warranted.

I am going by the quote of the person who coined the phrase and the use of it today.  Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge (especially regarding the supernatural). It is a position that is not directly related to only god, but the supernatural.

And the last I checked, the "supernatural" is a meaningless term that has no basis in reality. Supernatural? Why not subnatural? Why not hypernatural? or hyponatural?  What does the non-natural look like or mean?

Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge of the absurd.

If the subject of spirituality was simply black and white as "there is a God" or "there is no God", then the term "faith" would have no part in the discussion.

Personally, I having trouble determining when Faith EVER has a part in ANY discussion.  What purpose does it serve.
One definition of faith is "the permission one gives oneself to belief something when the facts don't support it". I think this is pretty accurate - based on empirical evidence, that is.  ;D

A belief in the supernatural isn't what I was meaning so much. TBH, I'm unfamiliar with the coining of the term or it's original definition. My use was in the context of insufficient data to tell you one way or another whether there is or isn't a god.

I tend to agree about the term supernatural, Super implies on top of. Like a superstructure built on a substructure. Somehow things built on top of natural laws would seem to logically follow those natural laws. Like the laws of stream discharge calculation are built on the laws of physics. I don't really see anything "supernatural" about calculating stream discharge. My view is that "supernatural" phenomenon are either things that we just doesn't understand the workings of, or in many cases things that didn't actually happen in the way they were described.



You very well might be attributing a proper meaning to agnosticism. What I meant to convey, was that you should keep in mind that it doesn't really describe a lot of people who consider themselves agnostic.

Honestly, I have no idea what supernatural means. For example, radiation could have seemed supernatural 1000 years ago, but is now found to be natural. I can understand that there are things in our universe that I won't understand, or that we will never discover. I understand that we will struggle to "see" beyond a certain range (electron microscopes, geiger counters, telescopes, etc help, but may not detect everything).

That said, it all falls under the catagory of Natural. If it is part of this universe, and holds to its laws, it is natural. I simply don't understand the term "supernatural". It is a meaningless phrase, IMO, and for anyone to posit that it exists knows more about it than I do.  They must also have evidence of it, which they seem to be withholding.