Atheist Versus Agnostic

It may be that i just dont have the balls to stand up to people and tell them that they are wrong, or it may be that the same thing that scares me about Theism also scares me about Atheism.

The belief in God, or gods, is just as scary as the belief in the lack of a God, or gods. not scary as in, what the heck happens to me when i die, scary. But Scary like; how can you be so sure about something? scary.

Atheists sometimes scare me just as much as Theists do, simply because of the Faith it takes to believe that there is no God, or that there is one. In my opinion (prove me wrong, please. i would love to actually be sure about something) There is no way to prove, without reasonable doubt, that there is no God, and there is no way to prove, without reasonable doubt, that there is a God.

I think Agnostics tend to over-analyze things, and then have trouble making up their mind once they are done thinking about something. But that is just me.

A problem is that there are at least two sets of definitions in circulation, both of which work but are overlapping and different.

Atheist – someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.

Agnostic – someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.

Theists – someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.

and

Atheist – is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a – theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces.

Agnosticism – literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) dosen’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.

Theist – simply someone who has a belief in god(s).

I am an atheist by the second set of definitions but not by the first.

@ Richard:

Let’s take what you said and change it up a wee-bit.

It may be that i just dont have the balls to stand up to people and tell them that they are wrong, or it may be that the same thing that scares me about BIGFOOT-ism also scares me about A-BIGFOOT-ism.

The belief in BIG FOOT, or BIG FEET, is just as scary as the belief in the lack of a BIG FOOT, or BIG FEET. not scary as in, what the heck happens to me when i die, scary. But Scary like; how can you be so sure about something? scary.

A-BIG FOOT-ists sometimes scare me just as much as BIG FOOT-ists do, simply because of the Faith it takes to believe that there is no BIG FOOT, or that there is one. In my opinion (prove me wrong, please. i would love to actually be sure about something) There is no way to prove, without reasonable doubt, that there is no BIG FOOT, and there is no way to prove, without reasonable doubt, that there is a BIG FOOT.

I think Agnostics tend to over-analyze things, and then have trouble making up their mind once they are done thinking about something. But that is just me.

Weak atheism (or just Atheism, period) is the lack of belief. Personally, I reserve the right to be skeptical of any claim and until sufficient evidence is presented to change my mind….call me what you want, atheist or whatever. I don’t have time, nor do I wish to waste years looking over the scholarly and philosophical treatise to find out if the Christian god exists or not. If “He” does, then he knows what to convince me to believe in “Him”. “He” ain’t done it so far, so I’m not wasting my time.

As for Big Foot, I am an A-Big Foot-ist until he comes knocking on my door and introduces himself.

Although I’ve called myself an atheist in times past, I’m really not. I’m open to the idea that everything I know about the universe could be wrong, that the seemingly obvious (un)supernaturality of it all is in fact the opposite. The idea that atoms exist and stick together in Angelina Jolie shaped clumps is supernatural enough for me to entertain the idea of a creator. But at this stage of the game I’m yet to see, hear of feel anything that truly convinces me that the Christian god exists and gives a damn about me.

Oh yeah, THAT’S what I miss about being a Christian.. dealing out severe beatings. *sigh* Good times.

Jasen got it. Unfortunately the (in my opinion) superior “lack of belief” definition is relatively unknown outside of atheist circles.

Agnosticism is an epistemological position.

Atheism is an ontological position.

They are not degrees of certainty in the non-existence of god. One can say they don’t believe in god or gods while maintaining that it can’t be known whether or not they actually exist.

I’m with BZ above… even someone like Richard Dawkins doesn’t give himself a high number on his atheist rating chart in his book “The God Delusion”

I called myself an agnostic for years and sometimes still do to some people, but I’m atheist without a doubt. It takes time for some of us that were religion ingrained for years to meld into that label.

I think all atheists are agnostics on some level. If you ask me if I believe in unicorns, or if I believe that unicorns exist (the magical type, not just a horse with a mutation) I would have to say, I honestly don’t know. I can’t prove to you that they don’t. However, this is where probability comes in. The probability that unicorns exist is so small, that you can generalize this idea into “no they don’t exist.” It isn’t necessary for me to say, “no, the probability that they exist is so small, but if you show me evidence to the contrary, then I can be proven wrong.” It would be interesting to ask an agnostic on how they weight the options. What is the probability that you think a god exists? People who say “I don’t know” kind of imply that it’s 50/50 and I’m pretty sure they don’t feel that way.

Do black swans exist?

Web comics=WIN

The problem is saying “no” to the question is ambiguous. You could be saying one of two things:

1) I believe that god does not exist.
2) I do not believe that god exists.

The first asserts a positive belief of knowing that this being, known as God, does not exist. The second asserts that you don’t hold the positive belief that God does exist. Note that that pragmatically, many people interpret the second as if it means the same as the first. However, it can also mean what I described above, which does not say anything about believing that God actually does not exist. The be more clear, the two statements could be presented this way:

1) I hold the belief that god does not exist.
2) I do not hold the belief that god exists.

If we consider the meaning of atheist, it is simply “not a theist.” A theist would hold the belief that god exists. Therefore, the second statement is a more accurate definition of a belief sufficient or being an atheist.

To be more generic, we can use a semi-logical form the represent these three statements to be clearer:

Theist: p = I believe x

Atheist 1) I believe not(x)
Atheist 2) not(I believe x) = not(p)

So I think its fairly clear that logically, the second statement is the negation of being a theist, while the first is only a subset of atheists.

Of course, colloquially, many people have different ideas about what an atheist is, so in reality its more complicated. And of course atheists themselves also discriminate between what we believe in a strict ontological sense, and what we practically believe.

For instance, I understand that in truth I can’t know for sure that there is no god, but I also believe that the probability that he exists is about the same as the probability that unicorns or leprechauns exist. Thus, in an everyday, practical sense, I can say that I believe god does not exist.

I disagree with the comic (and most of the commenters above). You can say, “Agnostic means X and atheist means Y,” all you want, but word definitions are not objective truths. If I wanted to, I could say “With reference to your definitions, I would be a [blank]”, but why should I stick to that label in general? The whole line of argument is useless. Useless when agnostics do it, useless when atheists do it.

I far prefer “atheist”, because I’ve found that your typical self-identified agnostic has some serious misconceptions. They tend to think they are the only ones in the world who are unsure about themselves. Sometimes it makes for some irritating self-righteous humility. No, it is not profound, not even interesting, to say that we cannot know things for certain.

Brad, Jon’s example seems spot-on. The problem with your comic, and your response to Jon, is that you’re not using very sensible definitions of agnostic and atheist. Jasen gave two possible ways to define agnostic and atheist, both of which are reasonable. I prefer his first pair of definitions, but either pair is good. But you seem to want to define atheist as “someone who doesn’t possess a belief in a god or gods,” regardless of whether they “believe that there are no god or gods.” (ala Jon’s example, the first doesn’t imply the second.) Then you want to define agnostic in exactly the same way. If those are your definitions, then yeah, I guess you could complain that agnostics should really call themselves atheists. You could equally well complain that atheists should call themselves agnostics. But it doesn’t make much sense to choose definitions for two words that make them equivalent, and then complain that people should only use one of them. Whatever definition you pick for the two words (again, see Jasen’s post) should allow “agnostic” to indicate more uncertainty of some kind (ontological, epistemological, whatever), than “atheist.”

BTW, Brad, while I haven’t agreed with the logic of either of your comics that have recently been posted here, your comics are generally great. This one was awesome. Build up larger archives! Quit your job, and dedicate your life to making comics for me, if need be.

It is unacceptably common for somebody to use I’m agnostic” as an arrogant position, to belittle both theists and non-theists. Generally, these individuals are brutally ignorant of the subject at hand.

Ditto what jtradke said.

Funny, because I have discussions with my atheist friends who can’t understand why I am both agnostic and atheistic. If I have to pick the one I am sure of to the point of faith, it’s that our little monkey brains can never grasp the magnitude of the universe and all the myriad of wonders it contains. But do I believe some god or gods control it? Only if you can equate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics to gods. Hence I believe that it’s all natural not supernatural, but some of the mechanisms are unknown and even unknowable given the teensy amount of time and grey matter and time we have to parse them.

@Autumnal Harvest:
See George H. Smith’s treatment of the subject as linked on my comic. I didn’t come up with these definitions, I’m relying on the scholarship of the atheist authors and thinkers of the past 500 years.

That being said it seems to me this is the situation.

There is a very inclusive definition of atheist, and a very exclusive one.

The vast majority of atheists do not claim certainty of the non-existence of god.

So to use the exclusive definition leaves you with a large inconsistency. Living in a world populated with literally millions of atheists that you don’t want to call atheists.

If you stick to the exclusive definition, you can’t read any of the most important atheist authors without getting confused.

The definitions I’m using are also simply more useful than the others.

So when there is a more accepted, widely used, useful, logical, and cogent definition with the force of historical usage behind it why bother with the other definition?

Why choose a definition that leaves you without context to interpret atheistic works? Why choose a definition that’s at conflict with the vast majority that actually label themselves with the word you are defining? It just seems counter-productive to me. Like saying “bald” should now mean only people who have lost their hair naturally, not those that shave their head. Why adopt this exclusive attitude?

@Autumnal Harvest

Oh, one more thing. If you want us to keep making comics… check out our sponsors. 🙂

I like the comic, but I think it just misses the point (or maybe stops just short of the point), which is that knowledge and belief are best treated as separate continua. I’m an atheist, but I’m also an agnostic. I don’t believe in God, but I also don’t claim certain knowledge on the matter. In this sense, “agnostic” might seem redundant; but it’s not. There are almost certainly atheists about who claim certain knowledge that there is no god. Indeed, if we define God as an omniscient and omnipotent all-benevolent being who has the will to stop human suffering, a lot of us would probably say we know no such being exists. But if we define God simply as some kind of creator, then most of us, I think, would be less ready to claim certain knowledge, but would still define ourselves as atheists; not knowing for certain doesn’t mean you have to believe.

Interestingly, I suspect that most atheists are also agnostics in this sense of not claiming certain knowledge about their beliefs. Theists are a more varied bunch. My mother claims to be an agnostic Christian (in fact I think she’s really a humanist with a veneer of anglicanism painted on the top — though anglicanism itself could be called humanism with a veneer of Christianity, at least in Great Britain); many more theists claim to know that there is a God.

So I’m an agnostic atheist, though if anyone asks, I do tend to just say atheist.

PS: I notice I committed the sin of not reading through all the comments before posting. So I’m repeating what other people have said. Sorry!

ditto to what AV said, I’m agnostic atheist.

Aargh! This same old tired argument.

Jeff said it better than I will so I’ll just do my usual speaking off the cuff.

As a “hard” atheist, I gotta say I find it utterly ridiculous that if I do have the balls to say there is no god (which I do, all the time; I like to say when something bad happens, there is no God in the same manner believers say there is a god when something good does) that the burden of proof falls on me for saying something so “unknowable”.

Unknowable? My ass. It’s about as unknowable as santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. And I’m required to prove the ridiculous assertion isn’t true about as much for God as I am Santa. But short form: god just doesn’t make sense and to misquote Judge Judy, if it doesn’t make sense, it ain’t so.

I am Atheist; I am not Agnostic. I used to be Agnostic but that was when I was in my chickenshit stage of breaking away from my childhood indoctrination.

I don’t say all Agnostics are like this but I think the majority are. And there seems to be a new class of them, like Mahr, who are just calling themself Agnostic to be both snobby and PC.

Mahr is highly over-rated. Mainly, I find him a horse’s ass. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. Mainly, because, so far, he’s done nothing to change my mind.

Oh, but thanks for the link to the great comic page!

Derek, you asked

Why all the quibbling over what a person chooses to call him/herself?

Your point about using whatever terms help you to get through your day with the least hassle I can easily understand, but look at the fact that several of your reasons have to do with mitigating or avoiding the lack of acceptance or understanding from people around you. It illustrates the problem:

I think the quibbling is because we often have spent many years feeling isolated with few if any friends who share our views, feeling that we are at risk in a hostile environment, and frustrated by being defined and described by people who do not understand us at all. Many of us yearn for some kind of fellowship and it can be doubly frustrating when we find people who seem to share our views but who disagree over what identifying label we can share. Isolated and misunderstood again.

You might have noticed that the posts on this site that are about definitions of atheism and agnosticism, or the threads that go off on that discussion are among the longest, collecting well over a hundred comments in the first couple of days.

We-Who-Do-Not-Fit-In, if we can be called “a people” at all, are a people in search of a definition that is ours, not somebody else’s, but we often have little in common other than our shared hurt at the hands of Those-Who-Fit-In. So we struggle with our natural independence and individuality, united only by what we are not. I think that is what makes us so picky about definitions and eager to finally find some kind of agreement at least about our name.

I have no idea if we ever will.

We have this book. It’s called a dictionary. It can be used to look up what the generally accepted meaning of a word is:

a·the·ist
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag·nos·tic
n.
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

There is a very distinct difference between the two words. Atheism is defined as a position of absolute certainty. I never understand when people who claim to be skeptics can also call themselves atheists, then go on to admit that the existence of a god can not be proved or disproved.

The question, in my mind, is why don’t more atheists call themselves agnostic?

JSug, my dictionary says something different.

atheism -ee-iz-zum N
the belief that there is no God
Greek a- without + theos god
atheist n

agnostic N
1 a person who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists
2 a person who claims that the answer to some specific question cannot be known with certainty ADJ
of or relating to agnostics
a- + gnostic having knowledge
agnosticism n

I do not believe in gods of any kind. I do not believe in fairies or ghosts or leprechauns. I do not believe in magic or the power of wishes. Any of these things might exist, I cannot prove otherwise, their lack of existence is no certain. I simply do not believe in them.

Far from being certain atheism is simply the statement of an opinion. I can hold an opinion without absolute certainty. In fact I think that it is important to reserve at least some judgement in case some new evidence come to light. Agnosticism simply affirms that ability to never be absolutely sure.

As for why atheists don’t call themselves agnostic I think it is simply down to expediency. Why state an opinion and then introduce an element of doubt into it? It’s like saying “I’m an atheist but I’m not really sure”. Isn’t it difficult enough already without weakening our position at the outset?

hoverfrog:

Look up the definition of “belief” in your dictionary. It should say something like this:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

A belief is not something you think is just the most likely scenario. It is something you accept as true. “Theist or atheist” is a false dichotomy because it assumes that you either believe God exists or else you believe He does not (for the sake of brevity I’m just talking about the Judeo-Christian God). The undecided middle ground needs a different term. That’s where agnosticism comes in.

Funny how you can be ‘friendly’ to those christians who are properly respectful, yet demean agnostics, who usually align with and support atheist causes, with childish comments about missing anatomy. Is the Republican divisiveness re: “pro-Americans” starting to trickle down?

I agree. I expected a little more from you Hemant, than to blatantly attack agnostics like this. Does everyone HAVE to be the same label as you now? Sounds like some Christians I know.

I just spend a month in Europe and people are much less uptight about labels over there. Many just call themselves skeptic or non-religious, and that is more than good enough as Europe is beautifully secular (although that is under threat with the influx of Muslims, something that American atheists seem to ignore too much). Your “everyone must call themselves an atheist” attitude wouldn’t fly over there, nor with lots of skeptics and humanists I’ve met, and certainly not with me.

no, it’s not that I don’t have the “balls” or don’t like the word atheist. I’m very open that I lack belief with people, to the point that it’s cost me friends, so I resent the implication that agnostics are weak. I choose to call myself that because I go back and forth, sometimes I think there is something, other times I don’t. I really don’t know, and yes, one reason I won’t use the word atheist is b/c how many atheists have you met that sometimes believe in something? Not many. Some have called me a “part time atheist” but this is essentially an agnostic. Also, there are some atheists that go around saying “there is no higher power of any kind” like they know for sure, and no, I don’t want to be associated with that b/c I don’t know either way and I’m not arrogant enough to say I do. Yes, this is arrogance. I am sort of a pantheistic agnostic, I go back and forth between pantheism and agnosticism, yes, agnosticism, not atheism. The words “skeptic” or “non-religious” sometimes apply better to me.

I have to say I really am surprised at how strident your post is. There are non-religious who are NOT atheists and we’re getting a little sick of atheists trying to force us to label ourselves as atheists. We might be more involved if things weren’t so “atheist centered” in skeptic circles in this country. The skeptic societies in Europe are great-if you’re non-religious, you’re welcome, atheist, agnostic, humanist, pantheist, whatever, no exclusions. How would you like if I told you have to call yourself an agnostic or else you have no guts? I’ve met many Humanists who feel this way as well. Next are you going to say Humanists are chicken shit atheists too? Seriously, isn’t it enough for you for people to just be non-religious and skeptical? Does everyone HAVE to be the same label as you? Tsk tsk. No one has the right to tell us we have to call ourselves something that we are not. Period.