How Do I Deal With "Agnostics?"

[Invidy]

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.

I'm not sure your edit shows that you understand what I'm saying.  I actually am in fact arguing that believing X is false is not the same as not believing X is true.

The problem is as follows.  Lets call the group that says "I believe X to not exist" group A and the group that says "I do not believe X exists" group B.

A = I believe there are no gods.  Belief in absence of a god's existence
B = I don't believe there are any gods.  Absence of belief in a god's existence.

All of group A is also group B, but all of group B is not also group A.

For example, if I say "do you believe I have five dollars in my pocket right now?"
The options for what you believe are as follows.  I do believe it is.  I do not believe it is.  I believe it is not.  Lets refer to the value in my pocket as value y.  

I put the bare minimum requirements to be met for each position, you see, p2 is similar to p3 except in that p2 does not necessitate the additional "y != 5."  They y != 5 is optional in the "not believing" position.

p1. I do believe it is:  I believe y = 5
p2. I do not believe it is:  I believe y = x (it could be five, it could not be, I don't believe in any value)
p3. I believe it is not:  I believe y = x; y != 5 (value can not equal 5)

p2 would be group B
p3 would be group A


If I say "I believe there could be a god," this sentence means that I don't accept the proposition that a god does exists(I do not believe in god), and neither do I accept that a god does not exist(I do not believe there is no god).

Because of the nature of the word belief, if someone says "do you believe x is true?" The no response gives you two options to consider.  One is simply nonacceptance that the claim is true(believing neither that it is false nor true, thus forcing the answer to be no), and the other option is to believe that it is false.  

It is the difference between not holding a positive belief in a deity's existence because you have suspended your belief, believing neither claim, and asserting that you believe a deity does not exist.  

... 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.

I would also use that definition, but I think the meaning of that sentence for you is different than it is for me.


Maybe I can put this all in an easier way...  If I tell you I own a pet, you can either believe I do not have a pet, believe I do have a pet, or believe neither(suspend beliefs).  Those who suspend their beliefs do not believe I have a pet, but they also do not believe that I do not have a pet.

It is so difficult to get this point across...I'm not even sure how to go about doing it.  Those who don't believe there is a god don't have to believe there is no god, it is simply suspension of belief about both claims, the claims being that there is and that there is not.  However, those who believe there is NO god also do not believe there is a god.  And so the confusion continues.

To put it simply, I hope, believing there is no deity is an extension of not believing there is a deity.  First you do not accept the claim, and then after that you accept that it is false.  Not accepting something as true isn't the same as accepting it as false, and this distinguishment is necessary to understand who atheists are in the broadest sense.

[RtPt]

Try to explain to them to be agnostic is a natural state of being...it is obvious we cannot answer most things 100%...but we can answer a great deal of items with extremely high certainty/probability... True Agnosticism is suspension of belief, an individual truly doesn't know, which is very rare...most people who call themselves agnostics believe in some form of a higher power/God/whatever or don't subscribe to any supernatural/metaphysical nonsense...I find that most agnostics stay away from the term/label because of the stigma attached to it in America...Anyway to say we are all agnostic is true to a very small extent...but that is a given...it would be silly to premise everything with agnostic...agnostic atheist..agnostic theist..agnostic scientist...agnostic mathematican...agnostic doctor...of course nothing is 100%...be we can go up to that line... I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% atheist and that is as certain as we can humanly be...

I surmise this will not work and the conversation will go back to the inane relativist nonsense...but at least I tried..

[Invidy]

Try to explain to them to be agnostic is a natural state of being...it is obvious we cannot answer most things 100%...but we can answer a great deal of items with extremely high certainty/probability... True Agnosticism is suspension of belief, an individual truly doesn't know, which is very rare...most people who call themselves agnostics believe in some form of a higher power/God/whatever or don't subscribe to any supernatural/metaphysical nonsense...I find that most agnostics stay away from the term/label because of the stigma attached to it in America...Anyway to say we are all agnostic is true to a very small extent...but that is a given...it would be silly to premise everything with agnostic...agnostic atheist..agnostic theist..agnostic scientist...agnostic mathematican...agnostic doctor...of course nothing is 100%...be we can go up to that line... I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% atheist and that is as certain as we can humanly be...

I surmise this will not work and the conversation will go back to the inane relativist nonsense...but at least I tried..

Indeed.  We are all agnostics, but agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean suspension of belief, it means no knowledge, you could claim to believe something without claiming to know it.  I believe I will be on a flight tomorrow morning, but I don't know that I will.

I prefer that when people talk about atheism they use terms like strong atheist and weak atheist, and if they say "atheist" they shouldn't exclude weak atheists.  Weak Atheist = I don't believe in a god.  Strong Atheist = I believe there is no god.  One requires evidence to support the claim that a god doesn't exist, the other makes no claims about gods existence and requires no evidence to support it since there are no claims to support.

People who call themselves agnostic generally seem to say "I don't believe god doesn't exist so I can't be an atheist." It is to these people that I say atheism is simply not believing a god does exist.  If you have no beliefs about god, then you don't believe in god do you?  

An excellent way I have heard atheism described before is as follows.

When I say "do you believe in a deity?" and your response is anything other than yes, you are an atheist.

[RtPt]

Well, it is very difficult to assert someone has "no knowledge" of this subject...There is really only two way to fall on the subject, that is why I say "suspension of belief", which seems like a highly unlikely place for most people to be.

I understand why people use "weak/strong" to denote the agnostic level in each...but basically atheism is atheism...

We are pretty close in what we think about the subject.

I would assert the premise of falsification...A question that has to disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place is invalid. This is different from trying to disprove a negative, which is possible if the existence of something is proven beforehand.

Bingo! That is great way of putting it.

[Sophus]

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.

I understand what you're saying but Atheism doesn't claim to know that there is no god. It just simply means "I don't believe in one." If atheism is to know there is no God then I would identify as an Agnostic as well.

[joeactor]

I understand what you're saying but Atheism doesn't claim to know that there is no god. It just simply means "I don't believe in one." If atheism is to know there is no God then I would identify as an Agnostic as well.

Agreed.  I think many atheists would fall into the agnostic category by default.

Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

2 more cents,
JoeActor

[BadPoison]

Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

2 more cents,
JoeActor

Which I find to be incredibly arrogant. What do they 'know' that I don't? I'll gladly change my opinion if I am ever provided with a satisfying explanation.

[Heretical Rants]

Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

I think a lot of theists actually are agnostics, but are afraid religion might be right, or can use religion to their advantage.