Happy Atheist Forum

You're an atheist.

Seriously.

Belief is one of those few black-n-white things in life. Like being pregnant, it's an is or isn't thing.

I know you prefer to think you're neutral on the subject of god, and you are - as a position of knowledge, not belief. It is possible to be unsure, and for most subject being less that 100% certain is the best position to have. It leaves you able to change your opinion when new facts are discovered, able to question your own world-view and the world-view of others in a constructive, healthy way.

However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. (EDIT replacing the struck-out paragraph below:) I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because it is common for those who claim to be "agnostic" to be atheists who don't want to be seen as "closed-minded", or to wish to avoid using the term "atheist", or - in it's worst form - someone who is being intellectually dishonest and choosing this make-believe null position.

[strike:1s3msaz4]I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.[/strike:1s3msaz4]

Of course, the reason I say "high degree of certainty" is because it is perfectly possible for someone to believe  - that is, to be a theist - without taking a gnostic stance about it. To believe without saying that you know. (EDIT clarifying my reason for certainty:)  It's just rare to see theists bothering with agnosticism/gnosticism, as it often just doesn't make a difference once a person has a belief as the belief often obscures that side of the issue.

Similarly, it is possible to not believe - that is, to be an atheist - without taking a gnostic stance about it. That is, to not believe without saying that you know.

I bother to bring this up because it is a common misconception that agnosticism is somehow this middle ground between belief and non-belief when in fact it has nothing whatever to do with the belief itself, but (as its root word "gnosis" suggests) is about knowledge.

Hey Jill,

I'm afraid I am proof that you are incorrect in your assumption.

It is very possible to be an Agnostic Theist...

Belief and Knowledge are two different realms.
In fact, if you have evidence that backs up your beliefs, they cease being beliefs and become knowledge.
... and if you claim to have knowledge, but have no evidence to back it up, what you have is a belief.

Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

I Believe I Don't Know,
JoeActor

QuoteAgnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:

    * Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
    â€"the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

    * Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
    â€"the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."

    * Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
    â€"the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]

    * Agnostic atheism
    â€"the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]

    * Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")
    â€"the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)

    * Ignosticism
    â€"the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious â€" discuss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

For the last 'definition' ignostic would still not believe in a god due to one not being defined to believe in.  Drange seems to have forgotten that if you don't believe something due to the definition being incoherent that you still don't believe in that something and would be an agnostic atheist.  You wouldn't claim to have knowledge and don't believe.  Ignostic is a nice word to use if you want to throw around terms most people haven't heard of

I dunno; when I still labeled myself "agnostic" I often made appeals to the patriarchal sky-god.

Now that I'm Christian, it's all I do!

Quote from: "joeactor"Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

Were you thinking of one of these?

[attachment=1:1o7g2uwc]atheist_chart.gif[/attachment:1o7g2uwc]
[attachment=0:1o7g2uwc]atheisttheistagnosticgnyh5.jpg[/attachment:1o7g2uwc]

Yes!  Those are them (they?)

Thanks Whit!

Quote from: "joeactor"Hey Jill,

I'm afraid I am proof that you are incorrect in your assumption.

It is very possible to be an Agnostic Theist...

Belief and Knowledge are two different realms.
In fact, if you have evidence that backs up your beliefs, they cease being beliefs and become knowledge.
... and if you claim to have knowledge, but have no evidence to back it up, what you have is a belief.

Where's that handy 4 quadrant graphic someone posted for this?

I Believe I Don't Know,
JoeActor

Crispy crackers! Do please read what I wrote, this time with some care:

Quoteit is perfectly possible for someone to believe - that is, to be a theist - without taking a gnostic stance about it.

See, this message was aimed at people who misuse "agnostic" as being some sort of middle ground between belief and non-belief.

Uh... I did read what you said:

Quote from: "JillSwift"You're an atheist.

Seriously.

... and ...

Quote from: "JillSwift"However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.

... but I'm not an atheist.

When you start out with a statement, then refute it by stating the opposite, you've said both everything, and nothing.

So.  See.  (Sigh)

Quote from: "joeactor"Uh... I did read what you said:

Quote from: "JillSwift"You're an atheist.

Seriously.

That's because the post is aimed at those who think "agnostic" is a middle-ground. (You're not an agnostic. You're an agnostic theist. See?)

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "JillSwift"However, as a matter of belief, you're an atheist. I can say this with a high degree of certainty, because were you to believe in god, you'd not be agnostic about it. You can't believe in anything if you .. well, if you don't believe in it. In not being sure about something, in being agnostic about something, is to not believe in it. You can still be open to believing in it, of course, but still not believe.

... but I'm not an atheist.

When you start out with a statement, then refute it by stating the opposite, you've said both everything, and nothing.

So.  See.  (Sigh)

Ok, there's the real problem. Most of that paragraph is left over from my first (and particularly awful) draft of the message. I can't say how I managed to let that stand, as it's obviously total tripe. I guess I need a copy editor. I've corrected my original post and tried to make it more clear.

I see what Jill is saying. There are a lot of folks who identify as Agnostics simply because they mistake atheism as being certain in disbelief. While some certainly are, I am certainly not. Yet I don't identify as Agnostic simply because an Atheist is simply one who does not accept any gods. In this sense, some Agnostics would be considered Atheists, but I wouldn't go as far to say that all of them are.

Here's Dawkins Belief Scale:

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Quote from: "Sophus, quoting Dawkins,"4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

I disagree that this state can exist. Where it is possible that to come to the conclusion of equiprobability and therefore not know, it fails to answer the question "do you believe?"

If a person who claims pure agnosticism is asked "do you believe", and they say "I don't know" - they haven't answered the question. We know that an agnostic doesn't know, that's what the word means.

The answer of "yes" or "no" leaves us with obvious results. There we have weak theists and weak atheists.

Does any other answer actually satisfy the question? I don't think so. Most attempts at answering neutrally are essentially non-belief. They are atheists. Which is how I come to the conclusion that most - and I stretch that to "almost all" with only minor trepidation - "pure agnostics" are really agnostic atheists. Which is the point I so poorly tried to make in my OP.

I'd love to hear an answer that challenges that. Until and unless one comes along, however, I still conclude that "pure agnostics" are really agnostic atheists.

I see your point... Ok, how about this:

A "Pure Agnostic" does not believe in believing, where the question of god is concerned.
For them, the question itself makes no sense.
You might as well ask "What sound is wood?" or "How long is purple?"

Does "Do you believe in god?" constitute a valid question if the person claims no knowledge one way or the other?

Maybe.

Is belief always required?
If not, then one can be neutral on belief as well as knowledge.

Lost in thought,
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"I see your point... Ok, how about this:

A "Pure Agnostic" does not believe in believing, where the question of god is concerned.
For them, the question itself makes no sense.
You might as well ask "What sound is wood?" or "How long is purple?"

Does "Do you believe in god?" constitute a valid question if the person claims no knowledge one way or the other?

Maybe.

Is belief always required?
If not, then one can be neutral on belief as well as knowledge.

Lost in thought,
JoeActor

If the person in question finds that the question makes no sense, then he or she does not believe and is thus an atheist.

The problem is that the words "theist" and "atheist" exist based on the assumption that there is a god to believe in. We don't have words like "leprechaunist" and "aleprechaunist" because no one takes the idea of leprechauns very seriously. This generates an illusion making atheism seem like a positive belief itself, when - like the word "cold" describes a lack of thermal energy - it describes the lack of belief.

That's what I mean when i say that belief is black-n-white. Belief is the positive state - it entails something specific. Without that specificity you then have non-belief even if you can claim no knowledge about it at all.

I think a pure agnostic could exist especially if the individual doesn't think about it much or it's not an important question to them in their life. An apatheist could be a pure agnostic as well. It's just a state where you don't claim a negative or positive stance which is certainly possible with anything else.

Imagine yourself as someone in the early 20th century listening to Alfred Wegener's claim of Pangaea. There was a substantial amount of evidence for it yet because he couldn't explain how the continental drift happened the theory was not accepted. But I would imagine their were a fair amount of people giving the super-continent idea an equal amount of potential as it just being coincidence that the geographic feature and fossils aligned.

If anybody can fall between 1 and 7 on the belief scale based on their level of certainty I see no reason why it can't fall 50/50.

Quote from: "Sophus"I think a pure agnostic could exist especially if the individual doesn't think about it much or it's not an important question to them in their life. An apatheist could be a pure agnostic as well. It's just a state where you don't claim a negative or positive stance which is certainly possible with anything else.

Imagine yourself as someone in the early 20th century listening to Alfred Wegener's claim of Pangaea. There was a substantial amount of evidence for it yet because he couldn't explain how the continental drift happened the theory was not accepted. But I would imagine their were a fair amount of people giving the super-continent idea an equal amount of potential as it just being coincidence that the geographic feature and fossils aligned.

If anybody can fall between 1 and 7 on the belief scale based on their level of certainty I see no reason why it can't fall 50/50.

Because belief is a positive descriptive thing, like I said above. You have it (to whatever degree) or, you don't.

In your example - It's possible to be "perfectly unsure" and to give equal weight to two or more possibilities. But that still leaves the question: Which possibility do you believe is true?

An "apatheist" is just an agnostic who doesn't care to give it any thought. "I don't know because I don't care." It still leaves open the question "do you believe?" I suspect most apatheists are atheists as well - they just don't care enough about the question to bother to label themselves. But, whether you care or not, if the belief is absent, atheist it is.

It's like a light switch. There's really an infinite number of positions the switch can be in, but in the continuum of switch positions there are only two clear sets: A set where the electricity is not flowing and putting the light on and the set where the electricity is not.

Have to disagree with you there. I don't see why one must choose between two options. There can be equal doubt for both positions in one individual, although I agree that more often than not people do lean toward one or the other even when taking an Agnostic stance. I think the options should read: "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) a God", "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) not a God", or "I believe God may exist or may not exist." Of course this doesn't define the God or Creator so if you technically this individual could be an atheist in regards to many of the gods humanity has ever created. The problem is a pure agnostic might say "I don't believe in God" which would make them an atheist, until they may also claim "I don't not believe in God either." If I had lived in the days of Wegener's super-continent theory I probably would have said "I don't believe in his theory since there is no explanation. But there is an awful lot of evidence for it as well, so I don't discredit it either."

I am not quite sure that I agree Jill. Agnostic means that we know that we don't believe. When a person states that they are an atheist it is equivalent to the statement: I know what I do not believe and I understand what I will and will not expect in order to create belief. Agnosticism on the other hand is to an atheist as training wheels are to a bike. Agnostics are in limbo between having and understanding of what they believe and disbelieve. It is a time for them to question and really discern if they can live without the crutch of a God. Lets face it some people have lived under it so long that they are dependent upon their old dude in the sky. It is easy for them and so they continue. Agnosticism is an important step. For some of us it can take a long time, for others it happens almost instantaneously it depends upon the person. At least that is what I think.

Quote from: "Sophus"Have to disagree with you there. I don't see why one must choose between two options. There can be equal doubt for both positions in one individual, although I agree that more often than not people do lean toward one or the other even when taking an Agnostic stance. I think the options should read: "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) a God", "I believe there is most likely (or certainly) not a God", or "I believe God may exist or may not exist." Of course this doesn't define the God or Creator so if you technically this individual could be an atheist in regards to many of the gods humanity has ever created. The problem is a pure agnostic might say "I don't believe in God" which would make them an atheist, until they may also claim "I don't not believe in God either." If I had lived in the days of Wegener's super-continent theory I probably would have said "I don't believe in his theory since there is no explanation. But there is an awful lot of evidence for it as well, so I don't discredit it either."

"He may or may not exist" is an atheist position. Like i said, without belief ("he exists") you have no belief - doesn't change that you believe it's possible, just that you don't have a belief that he does.

Again, it's an illusion of language that "disbelief" is an opposing state. It's not a two-position thing, there is belief in a god thing, or no belief in this god thing, or belief in any of a vast number of things that are contradictory to the god thing... whatever those may be.

Not discrediting an idea does not entail belief in it. Your last example there, replacing "supercontinent" with "god' and you have an agnostic atheist, not a pure agnostic.


Dragon: No, agnostic means "without knowledge" and does not address belief.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And it's a very good observation. But I don't discredit the idea of someone being completely in the middle. At one point in my life I was. It was a time of breaking psychological barriers, a journey from theism to atheism. There was a time in my teens when you could have asked me "Do you believe in God?" and I would have responded "I don't know". Merely because I was undecided. There seemed reasons for it, and reasons against it. Until I thought through other reasons for God and saw the flaws. So I concede my previous statement defining an agnostic's stance. Perhaps a pure agnostic is one who simply hasn't discovered their position. If they are undecided as to their position I don't think we are to judge for them what it is. Although, as I mentioned before, there's a good chance this person would not be considering some sort of omni-theism, thus they would indeed be considered agnostic atheists when questioned about their beliefs toward a less popular religion or deity.

But I do want to emphasize that you are absolutely right in most cases. People tend to lean one way or the other and often one will identify as agnostic simply because they acknowledge they don't take a stance of certainty.

Someone who's in the position of perfect uncertainty does not believe, but is considering belief. Or, they do believe and are considering abandoning that belief. No matter the level of certainty or doubt in a belief, the belief itself is either on or off. It can't be any other way, as belief is a positive position.

At the level of human experience, any positive position has two states: True or false. There are no degrees of pregnancy, for instance. There are no degrees of existence. A circuit is either energized or null.

It isn't until we start looking at a broader picture that we start having continuums form. Is the pregnancy likely to come to term? How long will the object exist in that state? How much energy is in the circuit?

Similarly, belief in anything is true or false. Then you start expanding on that: How certain are you of the belief? How much knowledge/evidence do you have for the belief? Are you doubting the belief?

Just because the emotions surrounding god belief and doubts about the safety of abandoning that kind of belief can obscure your own knowledge of self and keep you from being able to easily answer the question doesn't mean you stand on some middle ground between the two poles.

I would guess half of agnostics are true agnostics, a very small part of them are doubtful theists/deists, and the rest are atheists who don't find the word aesthetically pleasing.

I was an 'agnostic' who took awhile to want to say 'atheist'. Now I don't mind it at all, I realize it is an accurate description and it reflects who I am. Though I still prefer the term freethinker. Though if someone asked me if I was an atheist I would say yes.

Agnostics still are almost all generally allies in the fight for a secular, free world. Very, very few agnostics would choose the side of the theocrats.

... there are two types of people in the world:
Those who divide the world into two types, and ...

I've gotta disagree with the whole "On/Off" model for the human mind.
It's entirely possible that neurons, and the mind as a whole, operate more like quantum mechanics.
Instead of a pure "True" or "False", there may be a superposition of both states at the same time.

Viola!  Agnostic.

Running on Fuzzy Logic,
JoeActor

Joe, it's not a model of the human mind; straw man.

Quantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject... which would be what the word "agnostic" means: no knowledge. But... if they don't know about the idea, then... hey! They don't believe in it! You can't believe in an idea unless you are aware of the idea.

My position is a recognition that a basic, positive position is really a true/false situation. Certainty of the belief is a continuum, knowledge backing the belief is a continuum, ideas stemming from the belief is a continuum. The belief itself is a positive position.

In short, y'all are conflating belief with certainty and knowledge.

Quote from: "JillSwift"Someone who's in the position of perfect uncertainty does not believe, but is considering belief. Or, they do believe and are considering abandoning that belief.

The previous state of belief does not dictate what one must currently believe. As one could grow highly skeptical of the beliefs they held dear a few weeks ago they could be just as skeptical at the new opinions being presented toward them.

From experience I can say I was once equally skeptical of theism and atheism.

QuoteNo matter the level of certainty or doubt in a belief, the belief itself is either on or off. It can't be any other way, as belief is a positive position.

Belief is indeed between a positive and a negative. No argument there (even though I could play devil's advocate )But there then must be a third position if those are a given: neutral. Let's have a hypothetical man who has just now heard of the idea of god. He hears a debate between an Atheist and Theist. During the argument our hypothetical thinker credits each side with 7 well-made valid arguments. A +7 - 7 comes out to a zero. Our poor bloke has yet to come to a decision. (It's corny I know, but I think it gets the point across). Does he take a positive stance of believing in God? No. Does he take a negative stance by believing there likely is no God? Nope. This situation is probably rare and wouldn't last long but I think a state of complete uncertainty is plausible.
Another example may be a person of a positive or negative stance caught off guard by a surprisingly strong argument from the opposition. If they're completely honest they may say, 'Wait until I figure out if I believe this argument is true and then I'll let you know my stance on the big picture.'

QuoteQuantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject...

Quantum theory is full of interpretations. I think that's the point Joe was making. Predicting sub-atomic behavior you can have equally plausible arguments from separate positions.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_9GHoR-RJLy8%2FRtztwjzgXVI%2FAAAAAAAACAg%2FxR3OqSdNcCg%2Fs320%2FscienceLOLcat.jpg&hash=21e80f22ef1302d903e058c2d27dd2c5271fdff5)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_9GHoR-RJLy8%2FRtztwjzgXVI%2FAAAAAAAACAg%2FxR3OqSdNcCg%2Fs320%2FscienceLOLcat.jpg&hash=21e80f22ef1302d903e058c2d27dd2c5271fdff5)

That's probably the first cat I ever actually literaly laughed out loud at. But I kinda like the hig brow humor hiding a low brow humor thing from the pic. Sorry that's it for my digression


(I didn't put the smily there aparently it's automatic when you write L O L together. I don't like that personally I dislike emoticons and smilelies aso I don't use them...well EXTREMLY rarely)

Quote from: "Sophus"

QuoteQuantum theory? The Copenhagen interpretation says that once observed the superposition state collapses into a single possibility. Thus perfect agnosticism can only exist with perfect ignorance of the subject...

Quantum theory is full of interpretations. I think that's the point Joe was making. Predicting sub-atomic behavior you can have equally plausible arguments from separate positions.

Absolutely.  And though the "observer" phenomenon has been tested, it's never rung true for me.  Besides, where neurons and the human mind are concerned, who would be the "observer"???

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fmagicvoice3000%2Fimages%2Fbrainguy.jpg&hash=fe1cbcd1bdb0ecb0b43b357b72e09a44c73f305d)

KITTY: NONE?
JoeActor

Semantics aside, this is why, to a certain degree, I don't agree with the OP:

My personal, simplistic interpretations of the three "main" labels:

Theist - a person who believes
Agnostic - a person who could go either way if presented with the "right" knowledge, thus, the "middle ground"
Atheist - a person who doesn't believe

It seems you're intellectualizing the whole thing, and don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that, this world needs deep, intellectual thought. But the labels are there primarily so that we can distinguish ourselves in a general way. To tell a bunch of agnostics that they're actually atheists because of the way you interpet the concept of belief (as an on/off function) is, in the end, a sisyphean task. Technicalities aside, I see the term agnostic as a term for someone who wants to easily communicate, with a label, that they don't necessarily not believe in a god. If I fully explained my belief system in detail, I would probably fall under a few different categories "across the board", so to speak, so "agnostic" is a simple way to communicate that. In general, if you use the word "atheist", a lot of people automatically think that you believe that there isn't a god. As far as the ancient ideas of god, I could say I'm an atheist, but I tend towards the belief that some wilder notion of a "deity" might exist, so if I label myself an atheist it would be misleading. I think you're right, to a degree, about there having to be some sort of belief, so if someone believes that there could be "something else", than doesn't that qualify as being in at least approximately the "middle ground"?