Question for you all concerning the terms atheist and agnostic. I'm reading a book called "American Secularism: Cultural Contours of Nonreligious Belief." While reading, I had the thought that all agnostics, which aren't agnostic theists (which that is a classification for some I found out on this website) are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in god. They may claim not to know or not to be able to know but lack of a positive asserting belief is a form of disbelief is it not? If you don't put forward belief in god then you don't believe in god, which is what an atheist is right? What do you think, are all non-theist agnostics atheists?
Atheist is a noun. Agnostic is an adjective. Agnostic is the type of atheist I am.
In practice I happily answer to either. In secular circles I am inclined to simply use the term atheist. For people whose heads might explode at the term atheist, I am inclined to use agnostic and then explain, if they give me the invitation, why organized efforts to speak of any concretely defined god(s) are nonsensical.
Different people have different definitions. My own aren't 'righter' than other people's but are as follows:-
THEIST: Someone who actively believes in the existence of a god.
ATHEIST: Someone who is not a theist.
GNOSTIC: Someone who believes the existence or non-existence of god can be proven.
AGNOSTIC: Someone who is not a gnostic.
So by my definitions, if someone asks 'Do you believe in god?' and you answer 'yes', you're a theist - ANY OTHER RESPONSE means you're an atheist. If someone asks 'Do you believe the existence or otherwise of god can be proven?' and you answer 'yes', you're a gnostic - ANY OTHER RESPONSE means you're an agnostic.
The terms do not exclude each other. Someone can be a theist and a gnostic, a theist and an agnostic, an atheist and a gnostic, or an atheist and an agnostic.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. When people question this, I explain with an analogy:
"Can I PROVE whether or not there's a fairy living at the bottom of my garden? No, I can't - so I'm a 'fairy agnostic'. Yet even though I cannot PROVE the matter one way or the other, I still don't actually BELIEVE that fairy exists - so I'm a 'fairy atheist'."
Great answer. Thanks for sharing.
Fairy atheist? Really?
A fairy atheist would be a fairy that didn't possess belief in god or gods.
Atheism is the absence of the belief in god, not the belief in the absence of god.
This post I wrote may help:
"If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."/
The non-believer does not have to prove or disprove anything:
A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.
@nogod4me 'Atheism is the absense of the belief in god, not the belief in the absense of god' - which is exactly what I said.
An 'atheist fairy' could indeed be a fairy that is an atheist - or it could be an example of atheism using belief in fairies for the purpose of illustration. It is not my problem if you choose to misinterpret my words - particularly when others appear to have no such difficulty.
@ToakReon It is not an example of atheism. Atheism means "without god", not without fairies. You are trying to conflate the two myths into one explanation. A fairy atheist would be a fairy that didn't possess belief in god or gods.
"Does she believe in fairies?"
"No she is a fairy atheist."
"So, she doesn't believe in fairies or god?"
"No just fairies."
"Maybe she is an a-fairy-ist."
Take your pick. Personally, I like simple.
ATHEIST - Simple
Someone who doesn't believe in God
ATHEIST - Complicated
Someone who sees insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of God or gods in general but may be willing to reconsider their position should real and/or compelling evidence be provided now or at any time in the future.
AGNOSTIC - Simple
Someone who's uncertain if God exists.
AGNOSTIC - Complicated
Someone who can't decide conclusively on the existence of God but is open to the idea and may eventually choose to believe should they make a final determination in favor of faith or become atheist should they become fully convinced there isn't a God or they may just remain agnostic indefinitely.
Basically I am agnostic, but I am happy to call myself atheist, soft atheist, humanist, none theist, none believer, in fact any label you like. Because this question comes up every now and again, so I prefer to write about something more interesting.
ABOUT MUFFINS. I see that the issue of Atheist/Agnostic has been rearing its head again, as it does every few days, so since some people find this a bit tiresome, I thought that a post on muffins would be more interesting.
Suppose for a minute, and for the sake of argument only, that there is a god, and an afterlife, including heaven and a hell; and that the god chooses whether people go to heaven, or if some go to hell, in fact the whole theist deal. Not only that, but the criterion on which the god makes the choice is based on the type of muffins they eat. ( Note: “eat” not prefer, this is not about free will or anything like that.) People who eat lemon muffins go to heaven and people who eat chocolate muffins go to hell, with limbo for those who don't eat muffins at all, naturally.
Would that make a difference to your life ? Would you give up your chocolate muffins for an eternity of joy, and all the lemon buns after death you could ever eat ? Perhaps you would. But there is one vital thing that I forgot to mention about this god, which is that; this particular god, does not tell you about the muffins, or how they affect your afterlife, in fact it keeps the whole thing a big secret just to itself, so that you have no way of knowing which muffins you have to eat.
Then in that case, of course, you could not make the appropriate changes to your life, or save your soul anyway. In fact muffins, the gods preferences and even that god, would not impact on your life at all.
The point is this. That a gods, souls, the afterlife etc. have no effect on anything, unless that god, or someone who knows, tells you about it, and you therefore have some knowledge of god's cake prejudices. Making this the big difference between religion, which pretends to offer knowledge of god the afterlife etc., and none belief which does not. Which is why the difference between atheists, humanists, agnostics and even deists, is so small and unimportant by comparison, because none claim any knowledge of gods preferences, and it is the pretense of fake knowledge, and of god given authority, which makes the big difference. Compared with that the differences between atheist and agnostic, even deist, are trivial to the point of vanishing.
Wow, great take. I should have know it was you before scrolling; your comments are always impressive.
@JeffMurray Thank you. And it is always good to meet people who take care with their reading, and know how to show appreciation.
Love how you wrote:
"I see that the issue of Atheist/Agnostic has been rearing its head again, as it does every few days, so since some people find this a bit tiresome, I thought that a post on muffins would be more interesting."
Rearing its ugly head is my take. eye roll
Kathleen -
Lifelong skeptic and strong atheist since age 13.
@LiterateHiker Yes, well I keep the Muffin story on a file to copy and paste, I always think that new members deserve a reply, even though we may have seen it all before.
I use agnostic due to the stigma attached to the term atheist. But if you do not believe, you are atheist, period.
Just the opposite for me. I use "atheist" because of that very stigma attached to the word "atheist." Because I want to undermine the stigma of being what we are.
That said, I understand your choice. Many people have enough crap in their lives that being an uncloseted atheist would just make things that much worse. I'm otherwise pretty privileged, so I take a few knocks as an atheist and do what I can to disrupt the stigma.
I find just calling myself an atheist simplifies everything.
I think agnostics are atheist in denial.
I mean technically I am an agnostic because we know of no way to prove a non falsifiable claim, so in a sense the term is forced on me, when I don't believe there's a chance in hell there's truth to any of it.
Despite some controversy I am convinced that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
"I find just calling myself an atheist simplifies everything."
Agreed. I do the same in the real world. Because I am an agnostic atheist, I have the choice of calling myself an agnostic, but I do refer to myself as an atheist because that is the word that is easier for the public to grasp and because that is the word with the stigma that needs to be dispelled by our coming out of the closet.
"I think agnostics are atheist in denial."
This is the truly annoying stigma that atheists slap on agnostics. That, or we're accused of still being theists. Those of us who identify as both agnostic and atheist are truly weary of this friendly fire. We aren't in denial. The overwhelming majority of agnostics are atheists. Some are closeted atheists (not in denial, just coping with society); many like myself are out as atheists and carry the banner of atheism openly with the gnostic atheists.
"I mean technically I am an agnostic because we know of no way to prove a non falsifiable claim, so in a sense the term is forced on me, when I don't believe there's a chance in hell there's truth to any of it."
If you see this, then please don't impugn the intellectual honesty of your fellow atheists who also happen to identify as agnostic.
The reason most people think that Agnostics are in "denial" is they do not know about the person who originated the term "Agnostic", and what his intent was. Sometimes Atheists are as bad as the christians in insisting they "know".
The problem that most people run into when they start thinking about what us Agnostics believe is that they think of "god" as being the god of the bible, the god of Islam, etc. Einstein saw "god" as the great mystery of the universe, coupled with the universal laws, and that leaves the door wide open for the existence of god, but in NO WAY that of most images constructed by religious people who think they should devote time to their god, praise their god, and all that hogwash.
As time goes on I’m finding that it’s difficult to box people in with a single term. These terms can mean many different things to different people. Personally I haven’t found one that fits me perfectly, though I usually just say “atheist” for simplicity’s sake. But, yes, I think many people who call themselves “agnostic” could arguably be called “atheist” (and vise versa).
Lack of belief is not disbelief. That’s the logical distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Or a logical difference.
I think you are on the right track here and much about any difference is written by theists or former theists. People simply do not like the word "atheist." I call myself an agnostic atheist.
Ditto. I happily answer to either component, but my preferred ter is likewise agnostic theist.
I have had this discussion so many times I am sick of it.
I no longer care what people call themselves, if they will explain to me what they mean by the title they use I can tie that definition up to the word I use and think of them as that and assign an level of respect accordingly.
Words and there definitions sadly no longer seem to matter to people, the English language maybe in the toilet, but I refuse to swim in the sewer trying to turn a pile of shit back in to three course meal.
Excellent question and amazing answers. I am really enjoying this. Thank you.
I only want to add one thing:
The fact that we are agnostic atheists and can't prove whether or not god(s) exist(s), is not something that makes our position weak. Quite the opposite. We are not making a claim. We simple say: we do not believe there are deities. -A negative claim.
Another person makes a positive claim: -There are gods.
-Can you prove it?
If the answer is no (agnostic theist), then you don't take them seriously as they made a positive claim without any evidence. You might as well say there might be fairies, Zeus, celestial teapots etc.
If the answer is yes ( gnostic theist), the burden of proof lies on them.
Basically, you can beat a christian on a debate in less than two minutes if you ask them the right questions
In reference to your comment, "Another person makes a positive claim: -There are gods.
-Can you prove it?
If the answer is no (agnostic theist), then you don't take them seriously as they made a positive claim without any evidence. You might as well say there might be fairies, Zeus, celestial teapots etc.
If the answer is yes ( gnostic theist), the burden of proof lies on them."
Somethings in life are felt....like emotions. You can't prove emotions except by describing them and your behavior when you are experiencing them. To discount someone's opinion or belief because they can't prove it is nonsense. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion and beliefs but so are others and just because they don't line up with yours does not mean they are not valid.
I believe there are deities and a spiritual world because of things I have felt and personally seen. I cannot prove these things but they exist and are valid to me and I could care less if anyone agrees or disagrees...believes or has disbelief.
@ArtemisDivine Emotions can be proved by their characteristics and with an MRI scan...
@tsallinia I did not know that...that still doesn't change my stance on what I meant to say eventhough my comparison was a poor one. It doesn't negate that I have felt and have seen things that lead me to believe in dieties or a spiritual realm.
@ArtemisDivine I have seen things too. Things that some people might consider miracles.
My question is: How do you know they are deities? They might be aliens. You might live in a simulation...
How do you know?
I think this is a very important question to ask. I live in a Christian country so the moment I saw something extraordinary, I jumped to the irrational conclusion that it was Jesus. As a result, I wasted twelve years of my precious life as a Christian
My Agnosticism is in line with the man (T.H. Huxley) who is given credit for creating the term "Agnostic". Please see the link to supportive documentation regarding Huxley. To put it simply, I will not say I believe or disbelieve without conclusive scientific evidence. Therefore the existence of god is unknowable at this time. This does not mean I'm an atheist. Because an atheist chooses to disbelieve in god without evidence that would irrefutably, and factually define the natural creation of the universe.
Unfortunately, most of the dictionaries have corrupted T H Huxley's intent for the meaning of the word "Agnostic". This throws people off when they try to understand it.
God is a human construct, atheism is the absence of belief in god or gods.
"If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."
@nogod4me Your reply proves my point. It is intuitively obvious to most humans there is no factual knowlege regarding the origin of the universe. To use just one imaginitive example, our universe may be merely a simple snowglobe sitting in a curio cabinet of a super species who are orders of magnitude more advanced than we are. To us, these beings would seem like god. Yet here you are lecturing me about god. The only human construct we can prove are the thousands of falsifiable books, stories, dogmas, rituals, and spiritual traditions we have evidence of.
Yes. All non-theist agnostics are atheists, ...
... except those folks who call themselves "agnostics" because they aren't clear about what the word "agnostic" means as a philosophical position.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of such people in society at large, which muddies the waters everywhere, including on this site.
Maybe we can call this latter group "pseudo-agnostics" for lack of a better term. "Pseudo-agnostics" don't know what they believe; they haven't made up their mind about whether or not they believe in the predominant religion in their culture. So when they hear that agnostics don't know if a god or gods exist, they say, "Cool, that's me. I'm agnostic." But being undecided isn't a philosophical position. Actual non-theist agnostics know what they believe; they're agnostic atheists.
I've made the above remarks bc most of the chronic arguments on this subject here on this site arise from gnostic atheists accusing agnostic atheists of being "pseudo-agnostics" - and thus not true atheists. But the agnostic atheists know damn well that they don't believe in any god, so they get really irritated with the gnostics telling them differently.
And so the arguments go round and round, all bc too many "pseudo-agnostics" in the general population misuse the word "agnostic" to mean "I have doubts about God's existence but I don't yet know what I actually believe." That's not an agnostic. That dude is still a theist, a theist with doubts.
My credo is "I don't know, and neither do you". AKA Agnostic. I have had personal experience/revelation that cause me to believe in certain nonmaterial elements, but not a fan of Skydaddy and the Sacrifices.
I have never seen it hard to think that one has made up their mind, one has not...I just don't see the problem...
Atheist is a phony category.
Can you please elaborate?
@tsallinia Because 'god' could mean anything having to do with the nature of our universe and the nature of our existence. If you're saying there IS no explanation, then you're irrational and anti-scientific. Until we have all the answers--and we're a far cry from that--the answer to the question, 'Is there a 'god?' must be left open to question, conjecture, and speculation; in other words, agnostic thought.
Why don't you have the same level of interest asking about Bigfoot or leprechauns? Because these myths are widely accepted as myths. The god concept simply has had more acceptance than other stories.
We don't have words like a-Bigfoot-ists or a-leprechaun-ists, but we do have words like atheists or non-believers.
Basically being an agnostic is a mute point:
Does god exist?
I don't know.
This post I wrote may help:
"Imagine for a moment that the concept of god never existed, that no one had ever heard of such an ..."/