Agnostics

[bennyboy]

First of all, I don't agree with the concept of soft atheism.

What does that mean, exactly?

"atheism" is composed of three parts: a (not) + theos (god) + ism (doctrine or system of belief)

It can be compounded in two ways:
1) a (not) + theism (belief in god) = lacking a belief in God
2) atheos (not god) + ism (belief) = belief that there isn't a God

I dislike the first compound, which is called "weak" atheism, because I'm not in the habit of declaring the things I do not believe in.  My beagle meets this definition, as he lacks a formal belief in God.  My big toe also lacks this belief.

I prefer the latter, which is called "strong" atheism.  Someone says, "There's a God," and you say, "Nope.  That's a dumb idea.  Go sell crazy somewhere else, because I believe that God doesn't exist." This is a hard position to take in a general sense, because God is such an ambiguous term. But I CAN say that I'm atheist about the Christian God of the Bible, since that's an incoherent collection of contrary ideas.

I don't think it's useful to declare that I lack a particular belief. 

Yet you think it's useful to declare you lack a certain sort of beliefs in general? How is that any different?

Implicit to this kind of forum is a question about God.  Most people seem to be answering the question: "Do you believe in God?" and they lack that belief.  I am interested in the existential question: IS there a God, and the answer to that question is that I don't know.

Since I know my views to be different than most here, I find it convenient to demonstrate this perceived difference in declaring as agnostic rather than as atheist.

I respect that others think that's a meaningful view, and it's one of the two legitimate ways to express the triadic (a + theos + ism).

Do you mean atheism? 

That's right.  "Atheism" is a triadic term, and is intrinsically ambiguous.

But for me, I will declare as atheist only when I have an active belief that there is not any kind of God in the universe, or a Deity which created it.  I'm not 100% there yet.

So, what you're telling me is, you are in the same boat as the rest of us atheists you just declared dumb for "disagreeing" with the concept that defines them (respectfully, of course), but you just choose to be pretentious about a bunch of words everyone else agrees with for no particular reason I can see either than a possible desire to stand out. Not that you provided any legitimate reason I could see.

Not sure about the hostility, but if this how you want to talk, it's going to be a very short conversation.  There's a thread about people who call themselves agnostic.  I'm one of them, and I came here to explain why I prefer that term.

Again, this is something pretty much every atheist in the world would agree with. You just like to pretend you're somehow special, when you're not, by using a bunch of words very few use. Not to mention you're confusing the shit out of everyone involved, which is a very bad thing indeed, and not commendable at all.

You are projecting too much.  I know what the words mean, have thought about which I prefer, and have chosen the word "agnostic," because I think it most accurately represents my position.

As for that second paragraph, simply saying I don't know makes you an atheist. Why? Because your agnosticism on the issue directly points to a lack of belief. I lack a belief in aliens as well as in God, does that mean that I think there are no aliens in the Universe? No, it simply means I don't believe there are aliens in the Universe, since I don't have any reason to believe so(it's pretty much impossible to believe something as true or real without any reason).

I do not lack a belief, however, in the human brain, even though I've never seen one in real life.

See the difference?

I know the difference, and have addressed it.  If people want to declare as atheist by the "weak" definition, then that's their right, and I fully understand that.  I'm saying that that meaning isn't my preferred meaning, and that I would only use the term "atheist" if I had an active belief that there was nothing in existence which we could reasonably call "God."

--edit--
I noticed your second post saying you were going to back off and chill, so I deleted the part where I accused you of jizzing in my hair.

[Whateverist]

Strong/hard agnosticism = It isn't possible to know.

Weak/soft agnosticism = I admit I don't know.

Strong/hard atheism = As an undeniable fact, no god exists and no one can have a good reason to believe otherwise.

Weak/soft atheism = I'm aware of no reason to believe any god exists.


I reject any description of these terms which appeals to percents to represent confidence levels. It isn't about that.

[Foxaèr]

Agnostics are those on the fence. I find little respect in their belief preference.

[Whateverist]

Agnostics are those on the fence.  I find little respect in their belief preference.

You are making a show of your ignorance.

[Foxaèr]

You are making a show of your ignorance.

It is nothing new. I have stated this before.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if any gods exist or not, but I haven't found any I believe exist.

I believe everyone on the forum is an agnostic atheist, of the non-believers I mean.

I can't say as I know. I think there are a couple of gnostic atheists here, and they're surely qualified to speak for themselves. I only speak about my own views, no matter the topic.

[robvalue]

I could see myself deliberately misusing it if surrounded by people who are so ignorant that they have a violent reaction to "atheist", and I see no chance of correcting them.

You can profess to be agnostic or gnostic, and atheist or theist. It doesn't mean you actually are what you say you are. They are descriptions of fact, not positions to be chosen.

By contrast, if I say I'm a Christian, then I am one, regardless of what I actually believe or don't believe. It's a label I choose.

[ignoramus]

Strong/hard agnosticism = It isn't possible to know.

Weak/soft agnosticism = I admit I don't know.

Strong/hard atheism = As an undeniable fact, no god exists and no one can have a good reason to believe otherwise.

Weak/soft atheism = I'm aware of no reason to believe any god exists.


I reject any description of these terms which appeals to percents to represent confidence levels.  It isn't about that.

To summarise what Mark said, the guy pictured below with his hands up is a hard atheist.

[Aegon]

As far as I can tell, the distinction between agnostic and gnostic atheism is something a group of atheists made up a number of years back. I don't think it's the proper use of those terms

[Mister Agenda]

As far as I can tell, the distinction between agnostic and gnostic atheism is something a group of atheists made up a number of years back. I don't think it's the proper use of those terms

The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says, "I know not what you mean by God: I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I can not deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me."

Charles Bradlaugh, 1874

142 is a number of years back, so I can't say I disagree on that account.