How Do I Deal With "Agnostics?"

[Invidy]

For real.  I'm talking about the agnostics who refer to themselves as "just agnostic," precluding themselves from being atheists as well.

Atheist â€" One who has no belief in a deity.  (without belief in a god)
Agnosticism â€" One who claims no knowledge of a deity/knowledge of a deity is impossible.

I find myself cringing, and sometimes becoming insulting, when trying to explain that being an agnostic does not put you in the middle ground between atheism and theism, nor does it preclude you from being an atheist.  I find it a little sad that they get the definition of agnosticism half right; they just don’t understand it in relation to atheism and theism.

For those of you who don’t feel like reading the rest of this, the general question is, how can I convince people to use atheism and agnosticism correctly?  If everyone believes atheists are something they are not, how can we possibly have constructive communication with them?  

I feel insulted when people lie about my beliefs, and I don’t understand why they think “their” definition is more apt than mine.  It wouldn’t be fair to tell a Mormon that they define Mormonism incorrectly, in fact it would be absurd, so why do so called “just agnostics,” and theists do it to the atheist position?  I suppose the answer to this question doesn’t matter unless it affects how I should go about explaining the two concepts.  I understand the theists, but the “just agnostic” group makes me a little confused.  The only reason I can imagine for their poor understanding of atheism is that the “agnostics” do it simply because they are uninformed.  Yet the method for informing them seems to be extremely tricky to find.

Simply telling them isn’t enough to make them understand.  Often when explaining it to them they will say things like “words change all the time, you’ll have to deal with it.”  How can I get across to them that atheism isn’t a word that changes simply by people who aren’t atheists using it in a different fashion?  As I said earlier, you wouldn’t say such a thing about Mormonism.  If everyone who wasn’t a Mormon started saying Mormonism meant farmer, I’m sure Mormons would disagree that this definition is a fair depiction of them.  Mormon might take on two definitions at that point, but certainly it wouldn’t then be that when a person said Mormon they had to mean farmer.  Stressing the difference between belief and knowledge doesn’t work.  Explaining the difference between believing in not, and not believing falls on deaf ears.  Asking them to go to atheist organizations and read their definition of atheist doesn’t seem to work either.

Please, I would rather do an adequate job of informing others when I see them straw manning the atheist position.  If any of you have perfected a method for communicating these concepts appropriately let me know, I can’t take talking to people who are brick walls and refuse to acknowledge anything.  It has gotten to the point that I don’t even bother speaking with "agnostics" about the topic, even if it really erks me.  How can I break down the wall?

I apologize for the length of this post. I also apologize for any breaks in continuity that I didn't catch, I was tired while writing this and my eyes aren't having fun proofreading and editing.

[AlP]

Hey Invidy,

I don't find the God existent / non-existent debate interesting these days, though I am an atheist. Just wanted to say hi. Welcome to the board.

[Invidy]

Thanks AIP

[templeboy]

Really good question...one idea I have is to suggest that  they are apatheists (a contraction of apathetic about theist.) This is basically a position that says "Religion is not an important part of my life, and I think there are more important things to worry about than whether religion is right." That seems a reasonable position for a nontheist to take, although most of us here at HAF would probably disagree with it, seeing the damage that religion does in the world.

Then again, if they are sufficiently interested, suggest that they read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," which is a great book to introduce the basic arguments for taking a stronger position. (I'm sure some others are good too, but thats the one I read to start.) Before I read this, I would have termed myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I found his arguments against fence-sitting to be fairly convincing. And it really is much easier to "convert" a fence-sitter than a theist, for obvious reasons!

[McQ]

Invidy, I'll let the fine agnostics on the board defend themselves, but if you want to break down walls, I suggest you start by not assuming you are right and agnostics are wrong. I find the agnostic position very tenable. You post seems overly critical and presumptuous. You'll see why I think that as soon as the agnostics here begin to reply to you.

Good luck breaking down walls. I hope you are able to listen to the agnostics here, it would be a good first step.

[Will]

I'm an agnostic atheist, but it doesn't sound like what you're describing refers to me.

You can break down the wall by educating them.

[Whitney]

While I think there really are agnostics who are so undecided they can't really claim to be atheist or theist...most will fall towards one side or the other since agnostic is a position related to what can be known, not what one thinks of the subject.  I created this post (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830) with the help of other members to explain what the different terms mean; trying to define them in a universally accepted manner.  The only thing you really can do is discuss the meaning of the terms calmly so you can remove any incorrectly held stereotypes as to free up the other person's perception of your own position...otherwise you end up enforcing those negative views.  

[joeactor]

Ok, I'll chime in for the Agnostic Theist side.

Good topic and comments thus far.

As stated, Agnostic and Gnostic are positions of knowledge.
Atheist and Theist are positions of belief.

IMHO, where the answer is unknown (or unknowable), the only honest answer is "I Don't Know" - welcome to the Agnostic position.

Agnostics (pure, theists, and atheists) are not "on the fence", "undecided", or "unable to choose".  There is no choice to make.  The only valid answer is "unknown".

Coming from a database background in computers, let me offer this analogy:
In relational databases, DATE values may contain a valid date, or be null.
The "null" value is used when a date is unknown.
For example, an employee record may have "Starting Date", and "Ending Date".
While the employee works for the company, Ending Date is unknown, and therefore "null".

So, on the question of god's existance, the only valid answer is "null"... or I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else.

2 cents thrown in,
JoeActor

[BadPoison]

I think I know what you're getting at-

The way you defined the terms:

Atheist â€" One who has no belief in a deity. (without belief in a god)
Agnosticism â€" One who claims no knowledge of a deity/knowledge of a deity is impossible.

Plenty of agnostics are also atheists whether they realize it or not. The term atheist refers to a lack of belief, which in my estimation is an opinion on a matter, while agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge.
Of course the flip side, is that many agnostics are also theists though they don't realize it (And many theists are also relatively agnostic.) Their opinion is that there is a higher power, though they wouldn't say they were sure of it.

Kind of like belief in aliens while not willing to admit certainty.

Do we agree so far?

So to address your question of the best way to educate people in the nuances of the terms -- I'm not sure that there is a best way. I find that if I explain to individuals with patience and make a point to characterize beliefs as opinions while absolute knowledge as a percentage of certainty, they usually get it (at least for those willing to listen.)

This doesn't address the negative stereotype associated with the term 'atheist' and why many these days use sugar-coated terms such as 'skeptic'


EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

[joeactor]

EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

Yeah!  I win the internets!

I find that analogies are great teaching tools.  If you can boil down a concept into real world terms - something tangible - all the better.

It's like those diagrams you get with Lego sets that show you how to build the real thing.

Wait!

I just gave an analogy for analogies!

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...

[Invidy]

Invidy, I'll let the fine agnostics on the board defend themselves, but if you want to break down walls, I suggest you start by not assuming you are right and agnostics are wrong. I find the agnostic position very tenable. You post seems overly critical and presumptuous. You'll see why I think that as soon as the agnostics here begin to reply to you.

Good luck breaking down walls. I hope you are able to listen to the agnostics here, it would be a good first step.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean when you say I'm assuming I am right and agnostics are wrong.  I am an agnostic, and I am an atheist.  There is no doubt about what these words mean.  My only intention is to make it so that people don't wrongly pigeon hole the atheist position.  Agnostics can be atheists, and atheists can be agnostics.  They do not preclude each other.  This is the only point I want to get across.  However, when trying to express that people are using words incorrectly, it often seems like the person doing the correcting is being arrogant, rude, and overly critical.  It wouldn't be overly critical of a Mormon to ask that the person use the word Mormon appropriately, so I am confused when people get angry at me for trying to convince them to use atheist appropriately.

The only people who are in the middle ground between atheism and theism are the people who shift back and forth between believing and not believing, and even then this isn't really such a middle ground but more of a shaky ground.  They can't tell you what they will believe tomorrow, or even a few seconds from now.  Their belief is in constant transition.  I think this is the kind of person Whitney might have been referring to.

Let me make this clear, this thread isn't about what positions are valid or not valid, this thread is about how I can clear up misconceptions about the positions atheists hold to people without coming off as the words you describe me as coming off, something like "overly critical and presumptions.

Before I read this, I would have termed myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I found his arguments against fence-sitting to be fairly convincing. And it really is much easier to "convert" a fence-sitter than a theist, for obvious reasons!

But you do recognize that you can be an atheist and an agnostic right?  (you see, I've never actually read the book, so I can't make an inference as to what you mean by saying this) What I mean is, you recognize that you are still an agnostic (probably), but answering the question with just agnostic isn't really much of an answer, so you answer it with a more appropriate answer.

While I think there really are agnostics who are so undecided they can't really claim to be atheist or theist...most will fall towards one side or the other since agnostic is a position related to what can be known, not what one thinks of the subject.  I created this post (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830) with the help of other members to explain what the different terms mean; trying to define them in a universally accepted manner.  The only thing you really can do is discuss the meaning of the terms calmly so you can remove any incorrectly held stereotypes as to free up the other person's perception of your own position...otherwise you end up enforcing those negative views.  :cool:

I would consider myself an anti theist.  I don't believe there is a deity, and I think it would be horrible if there were one.  Well,if everything else in reality were the same and a deity existed it would be horrible.  If history had unfolded another way it might have been nice to have a caring deity.

Ok, I'll chime in for the Agnostic Theist side.

Good topic and comments thus far.

As stated, Agnostic and Gnostic are positions of knowledge.
Atheist and Theist are positions of belief.

IMHO, where the answer is unknown (or unknowable), the only honest answer is "I Don't Know" - welcome to the Agnostic position.

Agnostics (pure, theists, and atheists) are not "on the fence", "undecided", or "unable to choose".  There is no choice to make.  The only valid answer is "unknown".

Coming from a database background in computers, let me offer this analogy:
In relational databases, DATE values may contain a valid date, or be null.
The "null" value is used when a date is unknown.
For example, an employee record may have "Starting Date", and "Ending Date".
While the employee works for the company, Ending Date is unknown, and therefore "null".

So, on the question of god's existance, the only valid answer is "null"... or I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else.

2 cents thrown in,
JoeActor

Agreed.  The only valid answer to knowledge about some kind of godlike thing is null. However, the nature of belief in and knowledge are entirely different.  Something I find interesting is the relation of positive claims and negative claims of knowledge and belief in regard to (a)theism and (a)gnosticism.  I use the word negative in a general frame work, I can't remember the proper way to use it right now, but for the time being imagine negative means no God.  (You see, I can use words incorrectly too, heh, but if someone can correct me I'll use the proper definition from now on.)

Both the negative and positive claim for knowledge of a god's existence fall into the first term, gnosticism.  I know there is, I know there is not. While the non claim falls into the second position.  Agnosticism.  Atheism and theism on the other hand have it a little odd.  Theists make the positive claim, and atheists can make both the non claim and the negative claim.  It seems to me if we had followed the same rules for belief that we use for knowledge in relation to god, strong atheists would be theists, hehe.  However, the problem is, we don't use the word theism to relate simply belief in general, we use it to assert a specific type of belief, the belief that there IS a god, and this can not include the exact opposite statement of belief that there is no god.  So, here began the eternal confusion between atheists, and theists and new atheists who call themselves agnostic.

So to address your question of the best way to educate people in the nuances of the terms -- I'm not sure that there is a best way. I find that if I explain to individuals with patience and make a point to characterize beliefs as opinions while absolute knowledge as a percentage of certainty, they usually get it (at least for those willing to listen.)

This doesn't address the negative stereotype associated with the term 'atheist' and why many these days use sugar-coated terms such as 'skeptic'

EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

I'm not sure how well talking about opinions would be for me in a conversation over this subject. It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  The words theism and atheism are defined in such a way that confusion will always exist, I think, at least for those who only look up the definition of theism and then assume atheism is the opposite.  What they don't understand is that the opposite of believing isn't believing in not, it is simply not believing.  This is exactly why agnosticism is used as a middle ground by people who haven't studied the concepts, I think.

Agnosticism really is a middle ground, between knowing there is, and knowing there isn't, and I think the odd relationship of the words atheism and theism to agnosticism is because of how theism is defined, it isn't any belief about the subject, but rather a specific belief about the subject, gnosticism on the other hand is either knowing that there is, or knowing that there is not, the definition is any knowledge about god, rather than a specific knowledge about god, even though the early rootings of it were originally used in a different way.

If we defined gnosticism as ONLY knowledge that there is a god, then agnosticism and gnosticism would carry the same rules as atheism and theism.  I think the problem is that people view atheism and theism in the same framework as gnosticism and agnosticism, but they forget that if they viewed it that way they would have to include those who believe there is no god in the theist group.  EDIT: Or rather, they view atheism and theism in the framework of gnosticism, and preclude the concept of agnosticism from entering either atheist or theist positions.  Because of the odd relation of theist to atheist, they can not comprehend the concept because of the nature of needing the position of a negative, but the negative is (following logic) meant to be included in theism, and so they believe atheism must be the position that the flawed definition of theism lacks.  Because of the impractical nature of using theism as both belief in no god, and believe in god, we have our position strawmanned constantly while theists, and new atheists calling themselves agnostics, try to compensate for the somewhat illogical nature of our definitions.  Atheism and theism are impractical defined any other way than they already are, yet they are also confusing because of the nature of dealing with specific claims versus the more general system implied in agnosticism and gnosticism.


I do find it somewhat hard to simply intuitively understand, but I think when someone explains it to you it should be so hard to understand.  Could it be that those who identify as simply "agnostic" don't want to admit that they are using definitions incorrectly?  Or do they continue to use these definitions because they know theists almost always use these definitions incorrectly.

And, again, I apologize for the length of this post.

[BadPoison]

It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  

I don't follow.
The statement: "I believe there is no god" is a fact describing my opinion. (The description being factual while my actual belief is an opinion.) I don't see how admitting that we're simply talking about our opinions on a matter hurts our position. As stated, I could be of the opinion that aliens exist (for whatever reason I rationalize) but could admit that I do not know for sure.

[Invidy]

It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  

I don't follow.
The statement: "I believe there is no god" is a fact describing my opinion.

Well, yes, that may be your opinion, and for the majority of gods I will agree with you, but there are many non specific general gods who I don't say I believe they don't exist, I simply don't believe they do exist.

The point is that while some atheists assert there is no god, many atheists make no assertion, and simply say "I don't believe there is a god."  Or they might say "I believe there could be a god, I just don't agree that there must be one, or that there is a reason to believe there is one."

To have people confuse all atheist positions with one position of some atheists is not fair.

[BadPoison]

Well, yes, that may be your opinion, and for the majority of gods I will agree with you, but there are many non specific general gods who I don't say I believe they don't exist, I simply don't believe they do exist.

The point is that while some atheists assert there is no god, many atheists make no assertion, and simply say "I don't believe there is a god."  Or they might say "I believe there could be a god, I just don't agree that there must be one, or that there is a reason to believe there is one."

I don't see the difference between "I don't believe X exists" and "I believe X to not exist." Are you saying the two statements do not describe the same idea? Please clarify.

If you mean that many do not make a conscious assertion when they say "I don't believe in X" I might agree, but I still would say they are describing and making the assertion even if they don't realize it.

EDIT: Maybe I'm beginning to understand what you're attempting to communicate. You aren't arguing that the two statements above don't mean the same thing - instead you were talking about something else entirely. "I don't believe god exists" is not he same as "God does not exist." Was that the point you're making? If so, we agree - however I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

[JillSwift]

... I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

That's the difference between "weak atheism" (aka "agnostic atheism") and "strong atheism" (aka "gnostic atheism").

The "weak" or "agnostic" atheist position is "I don't believe in god", meaning there is no belief and there is no statement of knowledge.
Where the "strong" or "gnostic" atheist position is "I believe there is no god", meaning there is no belief and there is the statement of knowledge that there is nothing to believe in.

It is also possible to have gnostic and agnostic theism, but for whatever reason few care to differentiate.