Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Mister Agenda]

Uhhhhh... From Oxford:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/atheist

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

Why is this so difficult to comprehend, MFM? It's infuriating!

Can you tell me what dictionaries are? Also, it says "disbelief", which clearly indicates one dominant usage of "atheism" is the view that theism is false.

And 'disbelief' means: "the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected"-MacMillan Dictionary.

When someone asks you "Are you an atheist?", what are they asking you?

Well clearly, they're asking me 'Do you believe God exists?' When I say 'Yes, I'm an atheist', that tells them I do not believe God exists'.

Well clearly, they're asking you "Do you believe no gods exist?"

Oh, you went a different way. Funny, no one has ever asked me 'Do you believe no gods exist?', but plenty of people have asked me 'Do you believe God esists?', and seem plenty satisfied with 'No, I'm an atheist' as an answer.

Think about it, if someone asks you "Do you believe Santa Claus doesn't exist?", they aren't asking if you merely lack the belief that he does exist.

Why not? Why on earth is it not adequate to simply not believe in Santa? How many people really care if you say you don't believe in Santa instead of saying Santa doesn't exist? What kind of person would get worked up over the distinction?

They want to know whether or not you think he does.

And 'No, I don't think he does exist' is a perfectly cromulent answer.

They aren't asking for an incidental frame of mind you have ("lacking belief in Santa Claus"), because a newborn baby lacks belief that Santa Claus exists, and doesn't even comprehend the relevant concepts to understand the question, or even the language.

You're the one who is bugged by not getting the exact answer you want to hear framed the exact way you want to hear it. My lack of belief is not the same as a baby's lack of belief. So the fuck what?

Do you or don't you? I think it is valid to say in response to such a question "I don't know" or "I don't think it can be known" and thus you can't answer that question as asked, which is what agnostics typically do.

I think a real Santa Clause is highly unlikely, but it's not something that can be known without nailing the definition of Santa Clause down. Is he a jolly old elf whol lives at the North Pole and isn't invisible or intangible or capable of concealing his operations with illusions? If so, he definitiely doesn't exist. If he is defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable, then guess what, he can't be falsified, and his nonexistence can't be known with certainty, just assigned a very low probability under Bayesian logic.

So, what is my point? Basically, it's that atheists using this "lacking belief" definition of atheism are NOT answering the question really.

You've changed the relevant question to one that very few people actually ask, which is awfully convenient for you, isn't it?

So when theists ask you to justify your atheism or something to that effect, they're asking you to justify thinking theism is false, not justifying being in the same position as a baby is on the topic.

My atheism requires no justification other than the observation that theism has yet to be adequately justified.

[Simon Moon]

And if they mean the latter, I will correct them so they understand that lack of belief is also atheism.

Are you even listening? If people mean something by a particular term, it makes no sense to say they're using the wrong term. Words are used to convey concepts, it's no use to question the word if it's clear what concept they're referring to.

I'm not going to let someone else define my position for me. If they are using the incorrect definition for my atheism, I will correct them.

Let's turn the situation around.

If I met a Christian and I defined their Christianity as being Coptic and they were actually Eastern Orthodox, should I continue to use my definition for their beliefs, or accept theirs?

If I meet a theist that defines atheism as being the belief that there are no gods, I will politely correct them that atheism also means lack of belief in gods.

This has nothing to do with intellectual honesty, this has to do with what people usually mean with these words.

But if they're wrong, or unaware of other possible uses, I will correct them.

Why should I let them continue with their ignorance?

This isn't about educating them. It's about actually responding to what they're asking.

But if they are asking a flawed question based on incorrect or incomplete information, shouldn't they be corrected?

I know I would want to be corrected if I was defining someones position incorrectly.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sorry, but you are being pedantic. If someone says they disbelieve something, it is nearly always meant as "i believe X is false".

This is an unsupported assertion. You seem to be making a lot of them in this thread.

You disbelieve in Santa Claus, yes?

Yes, I do, which is another way of saying 'I don't believe in Santa Clause'.

No, did you miss the "disbelief" part? Pretty much only atheists use this lack of belief nonsense to mean atheism.

Not only did I not miss the'disbelief' part, I actually understand what the word means. Why should we use the definition preferred by people who largely despise atheists? Atheists have been defining themselves inclusive of people who merely don't believe since before the turn of the last century. Why should their natterers override our best thinkers?

No one is telling you what you believe, that's just false.

It WOULD probably be more accurate to say that you're telling us how to label and define ourselves. That's SO much more appropriate, right?

We're talking about what people actually mean with these words.

You're talking about what YOU mean with these words and denying that what WE mean by them has any validity at all. You are trying to define weak/negative/agnostic atheists as not atheists. Fuck you.

No, they're focus in the question is obviously centered around an accusation of rejecting theism.

That's a claim. You're speaking about what other people besides you mean. Your claim is completely unsupported and I reject it out-of-hand, and justifiably so.

Again, you're missing the point. Yes, it's binary if you say the options are either "Believe it's true on one hand, and not believe it's true on the other". The prob is, these sorts of questions are ternary (at least), not binary: Believe (theist), Abstain (agnostic), Believe opposite (atheist).

Agnosticism is not knowing, not 'neither believing or not believing'. It's commonly used to reference some sort of halfway belief state between theism and atheism, but theism and atheism are the words for states of belief concerning God. However, agnosticism is a word with multiple senses, and it's not inappropriate to use it so provided it's not in a conversation where the other senses are also being used. This is not a conversation where using the third sense of the word instead of the first sense is not equivocation.

ag·nos·tic/ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='696638' dateline='1403815440']
I agree, however you don't realize that this creates a contradiction on your part. If atheism is a response to god claims, that implies there were no atheists prior to god claims, even though on your "lacking belief" definition they WOULD exist prior to god claims, as everyone would be an atheist.

The suffix 'ist' indicates a person concerned with or interested in the main part of the word, in this case, 'athe', 'without god'; babies are incapable of being concerned about whether there is or is not a God or gods. If you want to be pedantic, an atheist is 'a person capable of considering the question who lacks belief in any god or God'. This definition includes those who actively believe there is no god or God, as they necessarily also lack belief in the thing they believe does not exist.

You're bringing up the same thing I earlier questioned you on, just in different words. When you say you're 'not convinced' by theistic claims, are you saying you're unable to give an answer or that the theist's claims are false?

It means their claims aren't convincing enough to justify belief in them. This isn't rocket surgery, MFM. The mere fact that you have to try so hard to be so obtuse should tell you something. I know you're sharp enough, so it seems to me there must be some other explanation for why you're willing to tie yourself up in knots to avoid admitting that someone who doesn't believe in God but is unwilling to claim that they know for certain that nothing that could reasonably be described as a god could possibly exist is still an atheist. Weak atheism isn't some new thing that we made up to avoid the burden of proof when arguing on the internet. It's the conclusion most consistent with rational skepticism: It is impossible to know with certainty that some version of a god does not exist somewhere, but given the current state of my knowledge I think it is at least somewhat improbable that any does, and I don't hold it to be true that any god exists.

But the God of Abraham, who formed the earth in six days, stopped the sun to help someone win a battle, covered the earth with water up to the mountaintops? That God doesn't exist because the evidence indicates those things never happened.

A God who created the universe and is omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient doesn't exist, because that God is a ridiculous pile of omni-attributes that sound like the result of a protracted argument over who has the bestest God. It's a married bachelor, it doesn't exist.

But because I won't accept the burden of proof for any notion of a god or God anyone might possibly imagine before even knowing what will come spewing out of their mouths, I'm not really an atheist, according to you.

I have a problem with that.

[Mister Agenda]

Are you even listening? If people mean something by a particular term, it makes no sense to say they're using the wrong term. Words are used to convey concepts, it's no use to question the word if it's clear what concept they're referring to.

Yet here you are, in a community where nearly everyone but you accepts a particular defintion of the word 'atheist' telling us we're using it wrong, and your best argument is how sure you are that a vast majority of people in other places use it differently. You don't accept that our usage appearing in dictionaries is evidence of its validity, despite dictionaries being based on how words are used. You show no ability to process the defintion of the word 'disbelief', continuing to think it's some kind of proof that atheists must believe the opposite of theists. Are you drunk?

This is just the nature of language. I can use the word "red" to refer to what we'd ordinarily call "blue", and the only real problem with that is that I'm not using the word people expect, because meaning in language is just usage. You're being a language essentialist, which is basically in contradiction with, well, the entire field of linguistics.

So, in your opinion, we're doing something similar to using the word 'red' to mean 'blue'. I disagree, but when participating in a community where that is the case, exactly who is being the 'word essentialist', them or the person lecturing them about how they should say 'blue' instead of 'red'?

This has nothing to do with intellectual honesty, this has to do with what people usually mean with these words.

Then you really ought to bring some evidence that you are correct about that, shouldn't you?

Clearly I don't mind either, or I wouldn't continue posting.

Although I'm a little frustrated at the moment, this reminds me to mention that it's unusual for me to disagree with you and I consider you a fine contributor.

This isn't about educating them. It's about actually responding to what they're asking.

You're making a claim about what 'they' are REALLY asking. I don't believe you are correct, and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind on that count. You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow self-evident. It isn't.

Guess what? Agnostic (or if you prefer, 'weak') theists are also a thing. They don't claim to know God exists but believe anyway. Are you going to deny that they're theists?

That's silly. You do realize that words change over time, don't you?

If irony could kill....

It doesn't matter that French Catholics supposedly invented the word (I say supposedly, since I don't actually know), as words change because they have no essential meaning.

So I'm hearing you say you don't believe French Catholics DIDN'T invent the word....

To say that words have an essential meaning is to basically say that the fields of linguistics and etymology are bogus.

The only person who seems to be maintaining that the meaning of the word atheist can only possibly be one particular sense of one defintion is you. The term 'atheist' doesn't mean what it used to. It is no longer a synonym for 'wicked', for instance. 'One who denies God' is fading fast and becoming archaic, but that's the one to which you seem to be chained. And there is also the consideration that a minority group has some right to a say in how it is labeled and defined, and we clearly have majority agreement amongst ourselves on this matter. Keep lecturing us on how we should redefine ourselves to suit your sensibilities.

You do realize this is accepted by basically all linguists, right?

Can you cite one linguist that claims the only correct sense of 'atheist' is 'someone who believes no gods exist'?

All I said was that atheism's 'meaning' is the position that no gods exist because that's how the word is predominantly used.

That continues to be your unsupported claim. It's a punk argument, and you SHOULD be able to do better.

It has not morphed into anything, EXCEPT among atheists.

We don't believe you. That is an assertion, not an argument, and not evidence. You should know better.

If you don't care about the "polls", then you don't care about what people actually mean.

Not believing your claim is not another way of saying 'don't care about what people actually mean'. Clearly, you haven't the slightest care for what WE mean.

And that is what I've been driving home here.

What you've provided no support for would be the more accurate thing to say here.

People aren't asking you if you simply lack belief in god when they ask you if you're an atheist.

That is correct. They are asking if I believe in any God. I don't, so the correct answer is atheist. There is no reason to suppose this is a trick question, and they only want to hear 'atheist' if you hold it to be true that no god of any sort exists. I take them at their word. 'Do you believe in God?' does not require the gritty details of how exactly you don't believe. Yes or no is perfectly fine.

They're asking why (if you do) believe no gods exist, or probably don't exist.

You think it's a 'why' question, despite not being formulated as one. I don't. And 'atheist' in no way indicates why I might believe no gods exist or probably don't exist. After asking if I'm an atheist, even if I were a strong atheist, they would still have to ask me 'why are you an atheist?' to find that out.

So even if you just ignore that you're equivocating on what people mean, you're not even answering their question.

Accepting your defintion, answering 'yes, I'm an atheist' STILL doesn't answer the question you think they're REALLY asking.

I'm not uniquely positioned, nor have claimed to be. The reason I think that atheists do that for this purpose is because whenever they get into a discussion about the existence of gods online, they ALWAYS start off by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so they don't have the burden of proof.

How did you eliminate the possibilty that we say that because we think it is the correct definition, and many strong atheists agree with it because they acknowledge that weak atheists are also atheists?

If the two weren't linked in terms of motivations, they wouldn't make the argument that way so routinely.

The way that rabbit populations must be linked to the height of hemlines in dresses and skirts? They wouldn't rise or fall together if one wasn't causing the other, eh?

Here's an alternate explanation: people who learn to make a habit of skeptical analysis also learn to be cautious in the claims they make. They hesitate to claim knowledge, for instance, that things that are unfalsifiable are, in fact, false. Their skepticism frequently leads them to conclude that belief in any god or God is not reasonably justified, but also that believing no god or God exists is also not reasonably justified. They actually hold a position where they do not, in point of simple fact, hold the burden of proof. They may be prepared to argue that gods are unlikely, or that particular versions of a god don't exist because they are self-contradictory or contrary to physical evidence; but acknowledge that the only argument against, say, the God of deism or Ra is that there isn't any good evidence in favor of their existence. We don't believe in any god or God, but you deny we are atheists. There oughta be a word for someone who denies that people who don't believe in God are atheists.

An undefined term? God or atheism? What word are you talking about?

The term 'God' comes readily to mind. You are the only person here with a definition of 'atheist' that differs from our usage, and you've defined what it is in your opinon, and we have defined what it is in our opinion.

I'm sorry, but those are contrary to one another. If you disbelieve because you think the theists' claims are absurd, that's why you disbelieve.

Which is just another way of saying 'that's why you don't believe'. There is no meaningful difference between saying you don't believe something and saying you disbelieve it.

And again, like Simon you're making an argument that contradicts your position. You say that atheism is just a lack of belief, right? If that is the case, then atheism DOES exist prior to theists making claims about gods, because everyone would be an atheist under your definition. The only thhing is that no one would be spelling that out. This is another reason why this argument about this "lacktheism" atheism is that it makes absurd notions like this what one must accept if they are to be consistent.

I addressed this elsewhere too, and I will do everyone the courtesy of not repeating my reasoning here.

I usually like QS' videos, but he's doing exactly what I said atheists are doing: changing the definition of what people most often mean by words and then reordering the conversation around that redefinition, and then saying that those who hold to the redefined version of the word don't have the burden of proof.

And you are still doing what I accuse you of: asserting all that shit about redefinition and 'what people most often mean' without lifting a finger to back up your contention. There's a reason why certain people want the defintion of atheism to be one that holds the burden of proof, and it's so they can shift the burden of proof inappropriately. I don't think you are one of those 'certain people'. I am mystified as to why you think the burden of proof should be with those who don't believe the postitive claims theists make. It's not evading the burden of proof to assign it correctly to those claiming they have knowledge of something existing. If most theists were agnostic theists, which they logically should be, we could avoid most useless disagreements about God's existence all together,

"I think some sort of god or God exists, but I know I can't provide evidence or proof that I'm right." "Huh. I DON'T think any sort of god or God exists, but I know I can't provide evidence or proof that I'm right." "Huh. So, what did you think about that recent local sports event?"

---

Not to be silly, but if I believe there are no god(s), then what am I? I thought I was consider just an atheist and nothing more.

You're an atheist. Someone who holds the position that there are no god(s) is considered a strong or postitive (or perhaps gnostic) atheist. Someone whose position is merely that they don't believe in any god(s) is a weak atheist. The weak atheist definition is considered the more inclusive one, since both weak and strong atheists don't believe in god(s), and some maintain it is the 'more correct' defintion for that reason. MFM seems to think the more inclusive definition is some kind of dodge so agnostics can count themselves in the atheist camp.

[ignoramus]

Well said.

A woman can believe she is pregnant (morning sickness)
A woman can believe she is not pregnant (partner wore condom but feels sick some mornings)
A woman can know she is pregnant (bump)
A woman can know she is not pregnant (no sex)
A woman feels sick in morning but has no idea why

How would you assign the terms atheist, thiest and agnostic to the above.
Relating to her belief in her pregnancy

[ManMachine]

Hey guys, just joined the forum after lurking for a couple weeks, and I wanted to grab your input on something that’s been bothering me.
Whenever I hear someone say “I’m not atheist, I’m an agnostic”, I’m not exactly sure what that means. I was under the impression that agnostic is a qualifier for your belief that simply means you don’t claim to know your belief is true, such as being an agnostic Christian or somesuch.
When I see people shying away from the term atheist or squirming in their seat and milling around before tentatively using the word ‘agnostic’ alone, it grates on me just a little bit because it feels to me like they’re reinforcing the connotation of the word ‘atheist’ being somehow undesirable or simply misunderstood.
I’d never deign to shove labels onto people, and people can describe themselves however they like I suppose, but am I out of bounds with my small irritation? Unless of course someone is claiming that they don’t know what is going on inside their own head, which I never really understood either.

Thanks for your input!

(also unrelated…I can’t seem to upload an image to change my avatar..anyone had trouble with that before?)

Yes, a person can be 'just an agnostic'.

Atheist - someone who asserts deities do not exist
Agnostic - someone who asserts that the truth about such things is unknown or unknowable
Theist - someone who asserts deities exist

A theist may claim they know god exists, an atheist may claim they know god does not exist, an agnostic may claim that such things are unknowable.

None of these, including the agnostic, has the reasonable authority to assume their position is universally true.

They can exist alone or in blends.

MM

[Simon Moon]

Yes, a person can be 'just an agnostic'.

I (and most here) would disagree.

Atheist - someone who asserts deities do not exist

Nope.

Atheist - the lack of belief in gods. SOME atheists may assert that gods do not exist, but that is not atheism in general.

Agnostic - someone who asserts that the truth about such things is unknown or unknowable

This is a position that addresses what claims are unknown or unknowable. It does not address belief, which is what atheism/theism address.

Theist - someone who asserts deities exist

Not all theists make that assertion. Many do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god exists.

A theist may claim they know god exists, an atheist may claim they know god does not exist, an agnostic may claim that such things are unknowable.

None of these, including the agnostic, has the reasonable authority to assume their position is universally true.

They can exist alone or in blends.

Belief is defined by cognitive scientists as - The psychological state in which one accepts a premise to be true.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one accepts the premise that a god exists (believes), or they don't (atheism).

There is the set of of all people that accept the premise that a god exists to be true. These are theists.

Everyone else is an atheist.

[Dystopia]

Hey guys, just joined the forum after lurking for a couple weeks, and I wanted to grab your input on something that’s been bothering me.
Whenever I hear someone say “I’m not atheist, I’m an agnostic”, I’m not exactly sure what that means. I was under the impression that agnostic is a qualifier for your belief that simply means you don’t claim to know your belief is true, such as being an agnostic Christian or somesuch.
When I see people shying away from the term atheist or squirming in their seat and milling around before tentatively using the word ‘agnostic’ alone, it grates on me just a little bit because it feels to me like they’re reinforcing the connotation of the word ‘atheist’ being somehow undesirable or simply misunderstood.
I’d never deign to shove labels onto people, and people can describe themselves however they like I suppose, but am I out of bounds with my small irritation? Unless of course someone is claiming that they don’t know what is going on inside their own head, which I never really understood either.

Thanks for your input!

(also unrelated…I can’t seem to upload an image to change my avatar..anyone had trouble with that before?)

Welcome to the forum. One can't simply be an agnostic. Agnosticism and Gnosticism are related to knowledge, a Gnostic claims to have knowledge, an agnostic claims to to know/possess no knowledge. Being an atheist or a theist is related with belief, a theist believes in a god (or several), an atheist lacks belief (in some cases an atheist can highly disbelieve) in deities. With this, four possible combinations arise, you can be an agnostic theist (you believe in a god but don't claim to know if a god exists), agnostic atheist (the same for agnostic theist but you lack belief in deities), gnostic theist (you claim to know god exists, from my experience this is the case of most religious people, but I might be wrong) or gnostic atheist (someone who thinks gods existing is logically/scientifically impossible, irrational and completely improbable). I hope I helped

[Whateverist]

MFM,

We may have a different conception regarding the purpose of language and I think that is leading to different expectations for discourse.

I think you are examining a piece of language and focusing on the most reasonable interpretation of its meaning, regardless of any context.

I would focus on who put the language together and what did they intend by it.

In a good English dictionary there will often be a list of uses ranked by its assemblers in terms of the frequency of use. I don't believe people who intend the third most common usage are making a mistake. (Do you?) I believe it is incumbent on the reader to correctly ascertain the intended use. If the context isn't enough, follow-up questions may be necessary .. assuming one has access to the author/speaker. I would say successful communication requires competent selection of words and adequate choice of context on the part of the writer/speaker. But it also requires competent focus and comprehension on the part of the reader/listener.

Now we both claim to be atheists but clearly we don't mean the same thing by that. I haven't signed on for that label agreeing to accept and endorse whatever that word's best interpretation entails. In my own case, I sign on with some misgivings especially because its meaning is imprecise. When I accept the label, I qualify it in order to better communicate what's true about me .. not what is defensible regarding ones stance toward gods. My disbelief is more on the order of being astounded by a preposterous idea. It isn't that I want to make a contrary claim regarding gods. I wouldn't know where to begin. When I accept the atheist label it isn't because my experience with gods leads me to a different conclusion. I simply lack any experience with god entities and the extraordinary descriptions provided by believers leads me to look for an alternative way of understanding their experience. This isn't me looking to make a case for my interpretation; this is just me trying to understand my fellow humans.

[ignoramus]

yep .... what he said...