Atheism and agnosticism explained

[Star]

I noticed there is quite a bit of confusion here about what an atheist or agnostic is. I find that if a theist doesn't understand what kind of atheist they're engaging, it's difficult for them to avoid strawman arguments.

Agnosticism – Not knowing if there’s a god due to lack of evidence

Primary forms:
- Hard agnostic – Evidence for god can’t be known
- Weak agnostic – Evidence for god could be known

Atheism – Not believing in god/s

Two main types of atheist according to Flew (1976) and Martin (1990):
- Positive atheist (or hard atheist) – Asserts there is no god
- Negative atheist (or weak atheist) – Lacks a belief and rejects evidence, but doesn’t explicitly assert there is no god. This form of atheism is often paired with agnosticism.

Two lesser known categories of atheist according to Smith (1979):
- Implicit atheist – Those who are atheist because they’ve never heard of god/s (no conscious rejection of the evidence)
- Explicit atheist – Those who have consciously rejected the evidence for god/s

Now based on these two terms, you can combine them to create:
- Agnostic atheist- Lacks a belief in god but doesn't know for sure and makes no assertions a god doesn't exist
- Gnostic atheist- Synonymous with hard or positive atheism
- Agnostic theist- Believes in a god but doesn't know for sure.
- Gnostic theist - Asserts there is a god and they know it.

For example, I'm an agnostic and a negative explicit atheist. I'm not sure which kind of agnostic, however, as I'm not sure if evidence can be known. (I would expect ample evidence for a lunatic such as the personal hands-on god described in the Bible, if he does in fact exist.)

[Danmark]

For me it's mainly about evidence combined with a more or less intuitive rejection of a classic god of theism such as the Abrahamic gods.

I end up with a sliding scale. The more explicit, detailed, and personalized (theistic) the definition of 'god' the stronger my belief is that it just ain't so.

The less defined, less 'human', the more open to evidence I am because such a belief is less likely to confound empirical evidence.

What I don't see is ANY compelling evidence for any god.

then where have you looked?

Or like the old man, do you expect the evidence to walk up a mountain and plant itself in your hands?

Careful with assumptions.

I could prob'ly write a book, using the 100 or so books I've read on Christianity, religion and historical criticism in my bibliography. I'm not going to write that book right now and here to answer your question, tho' I have on this forum documented some of the books that made an impact on me, as well as my own experiences and logic.

You can take my word for it that I have made an honest search and found hundreds of problems with the Christian apologetics that attempt to defend the Bible's many contradictions and problems before we even get into the belief in the many magical/supernatural phenomena one has to accept in contravention to what we know about the natural sciences.

I don't know why you can't accept that reasonable minds can differ, particularly when dealing with religious beliefs that are not falsifiable.

Neither an atheist nor a Christian should be smugly declaring people fools, or ignorant or dishonest or assume they have not examined their beliefs, simply because they've reached a different conclusion.

I HAVE read some published Christian apologies that I found dishonest, non scholarly, biased and poorly written, but I don't make that assumption before I read an author.

Frankly, I have heard almost no orthodox, evangelical Christian on this forum cite books written by proper scholars. EduChris is an exception [tho I make no claim to know what modifiers he might apply to his Christianity].

So... tho' I generally do not comment on some of the 'help' I've been offered, or the suggestions made to me by well meaning folk, I have my private thoughts which civility generally requires I keep to myself.

But I will not be lectured to by anyone, on any subject, who has not demonstrated he has put in the requisite work to have earned that privilege.

BTW, I have explained to you more than once, with citations, that atheism and nihilism are separate concepts, and tho' they may not be mutually exclusive, your continued insistence that one requires the other does not reflect well on your educability.

[Danmark]

....Why are there no agnostic Hindu's for example? Agnostic Christians? Agnostic Muslims? Why are there no agnostic Pagans?

Because as some level we acknowledge that the concept is grossly dishonest.

Calling agnosticism 'grossly dishonest,' and by implication those who call themselves agnostics is beneath you and violates the rules of this forum and the general rules for civil discussion. Also it is not very intellectually astute. One can be raised in any tradition yet have doubts and suspend belief or simply say 'I don't know' about the truth of the beliefs one was raised with, while still clinging to the traditions.

Are you suggesting that anyone who is not absolutely certain of the truth of one's beliefs is being dishonest? Or that one who is open to doubt, yet wants to believe, wants to remain in his or her tradition is lying to himself or herself?

Your first question assumes facts not in evidence. What is your basis for saying this? One can be agnostic about anything. Atheism BTW is consistent with forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, and if atheism can be consistent, why not agnosticism.

But to close on a lighter note, your comment reminds me of the old Irish joke.

A tourist in Northern Ireland is asked his religious affiliation.
He replies, 'I'm an atheist.'
‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the quick reply.

[stubbornone]

For me it's mainly about evidence combined with a more or less intuitive rejection of a classic god of theism such as the Abrahamic gods.

I end up with a sliding scale. The more explicit, detailed, and personalized (theistic) the definition of 'god' the stronger my belief is that it just ain't so.

The less defined, less 'human', the more open to evidence I am because such a belief is less likely to confound empirical evidence.

What I don't see is ANY compelling evidence for any god.

then where have you looked?

Or like the old man, do you expect the evidence to walk up a mountain and plant itself in your hands?

Careful with assumptions.

I could prob'ly write a book, using the 100 or so books I've read on Christianity, religion and historical criticism in my bibliography. I'm not going to write that book right now and here to answer your question, tho' I have on this forum documented some of the books that made an impact on me, as well as my own experiences and logic.

You can take my word for it that I have made an honest search and found hundreds of problems with the Christian apologetics that attempt to defend the Bible's many contradictions and problems before we even get into the belief in the many magical/supernatural phenomena one has to accept in contravention to what we know about the natural sciences.

I don't know why you can't accept that reasonable minds can differ, particularly when dealing with religious beliefs that are not falsifiable.

Neither an atheist nor a Christian should be smugly declaring people fools, or ignorant or dishonest or assume they have not examined their beliefs, simply because they've reached a different conclusion.

I HAVE read some published Christian apologies that I found dishonest, non scholarly, biased and poorly written, but I don't make that assumption before I read an author.

Frankly, I have heard almost no orthodox, evangelical Christian on this forum cite books written by proper scholars. EduChris is an exception [tho I make no claim to know what modifiers he might apply to his Christianity].

So... tho' I generally do not comment on some of the 'help' I've been offered, or the suggestions made to me by well meaning folk, I have my private thoughts which civility generally requires I keep to myself.

But I will not be lectured to by anyone, on any subject, who has not demonstrated he has put in the requisite work to have earned that privilege.

BTW, I have explained to you more than once, with citations, that atheism and nihilism are separate concepts, and tho' they may not be mutually exclusive, your continued insistence that one requires the other does not reflect well on your educability.

Dan, once again, bear in mind that most atheists are not like you. I have caught several atheists, just on this forum, rather overtly ripping their 'analysis' off web sites without comment or thought. Most atheists, and I use the term subjectively based on my experience with 'most' acknowledging that the objective numbers could be different, know the kindergarten version of Christianity, that he died, was resurrected, the Veggie tales version of Noah being swallowed by a whale, etc.

And so the assume, that being the limit of their knowledge, and which we routinely see, that Jesus was as much a myth as the Santa they grew up with.

Such atheists abound, and unfortunately, by applying such generic and over simplified analysis to religion, we get ... nihilism. The entirety of atheism is thus not an expression of life without God, its aimed at Christians. Common statements, and correct me if you have never seen these:

"I am atheist, because logic and evidence lead me to atheism."

"You Christians are looney and have no evidence!"

"You must hate me because you say I will burn in hell!"

These the manifestation that arrives at 'agnostic-atheism'. This is the excuse of atheists who are in fact nihilists. Thise who delight in the belittling of the religious, but when called to task .. are magically freed from the standards of logic and do not have to explain WHY they think you are looney tunes.

Indeed, when you take the time to explain the spiritual concept of hell and how we ARE ALL condemned unless we deal with our burden of sin, do you think the atheists loudly screaming that Hell makes them victims care in the slightest about the correction?

Or is the intent merely to disparage by comparison because us Christian with our concepts are such mean people?

I think the deliberate avoidance of thoughtful consideration of the more explainable portions of concepts like Hell is indicative of actual intent here.

But it goes to another conversation we have had about standards. If a nihlist calls himself an atheist, how do we know that the person, other than by his actions, is a nihilist rather than honestly an atheist?

I will submit that the first sign is someone claiming the mantel of 'agnostic-atheist' for the sole intent of avoiding having to logically explain their position.

For the record, I once watched a man, a strong atheist, 'convert' to agnostic-atheism right in front of me. Same process, he claimed that science and reason lead him to atheism (with fully puffed up chest) and claimed that faith was but a poor joke played upon by the stupid. He clarified that God was a joke, and when the proof was placed before him about how such a claim came with a burden of proof ... logic kicked in and look of near pain came upon his face.

He tip tapped away on his phone looking for some evidence that would be convincing that there was not God, some evidence that would fully justify his arrogance. Do you know what he found?

Agnostic atheism.

Back came the fully inflated chest. For the self worshiping atheist had an interent proof, that without examination or analysis, relieved him of his burden of proof ... and that is all that he needed, and excuse.

Again, not all atheists are like that, but far too many are. There is a reason that on our dog tags, for example, that we have no 'agnostic atheist' moniker - because outside interent forums, no actually uses the term.

So when I say agnostic atheism is the last redoubt of the more ... extreme atheists, I am not joking in said analysis.

That is of course agnostic atheism. But the question of evidence for a personal God is nevertheless a valid question Dan, and not asked with injurious intent.

I ask because, as an atheist, what do you say to the MILLIONS of testimonies of answered prayers? Callings? Testimonies? Changed lives? Miracles? Etc.

Its a bit personal, but I can tell you the tale of my own conversion, and how logic only gets you so far.

[stubbornone]

....Why are there no agnostic Hindu's for example? Agnostic Christians? Agnostic Muslims? Why are there no agnostic Pagans?

Because as some level we acknowledge that the concept is grossly dishonest.

Calling agnosticism 'grossly dishonest,' and by implication those who call themselves agnostics is beneath you and violates the rules of this forum and the general rules for civil discussion. Also it is not very intellectually astute. One can be raised in any tradition yet have doubts and suspend belief or simply say 'I don't know' about the truth of the beliefs one was raised with, while still clinging to the traditions.

Are you suggesting that anyone who is not absolutely certain of the truth of one's beliefs is being dishonest? Or that one who is open to doubt, yet wants to believe, wants to remain in his or her tradition is lying to himself or herself?

Your first question assumes facts not in evidence. What is your basis for saying this? One can be agnostic about anything. Atheism BTW is consistent with forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, and if atheism can be consistent, why not agnosticism.

But to close on a lighter note, your comment reminds me of the old Irish joke.

A tourist in Northern Ireland is asked his religious affiliation.
He replies, 'I'm an atheist.'
‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the quick reply.

I am not.

Agnosticism is fine.

I am calling agnostic atheism grotesquely dishonest and I believe I have explained why I have such a string aversion to it.

You are free to disagree of course. It is a debate forum.

[Danmark]

....Why are there no agnostic Hindu's for example? Agnostic Christians? Agnostic Muslims? Why are there no agnostic Pagans?

Because as some level we acknowledge that the concept is grossly dishonest.

Calling agnosticism 'grossly dishonest,' and by implication those who call themselves agnostics is beneath you and violates the rules of this forum and the general rules for civil discussion. Also it is not very intellectually astute. One can be raised in any tradition yet have doubts and suspend belief or simply say 'I don't know' about the truth of the beliefs one was raised with, while still clinging to the traditions.

Are you suggesting that anyone who is not absolutely certain of the truth of one's beliefs is being dishonest? Or that one who is open to doubt, yet wants to believe, wants to remain in his or her tradition is lying to himself or herself?

Your first question assumes facts not in evidence. What is your basis for saying this? One can be agnostic about anything. Atheism BTW is consistent with forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, and if atheism can be consistent, why not agnosticism.

But to close on a lighter note, your comment reminds me of the old Irish joke.

A tourist in Northern Ireland is asked his religious affiliation.
He replies, 'I'm an atheist.'
‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the quick reply.

I am not.

Agnosticism is fine.

I am calling agnostic atheism grotesquely dishonest and I believe I have explained why I have such a string aversion to it.

You are free to disagree of course. It is a debate forum.

Well... I don't think you would call me dishonest, grotesquely or otherwise, but I have no great aversion to being called an agnostic atheist.
- Agnostic atheist- Lacks a belief in god but doesn't know for sure and makes no assertions a god doesn't exist as it was earlier defined in this thread. I gave a more detailed explanation of my view, but the one above roughly applies to me, except I make a the assertion that the Abrahamic god seems very unlikely. I'm simply not absolute about it.

I don't think we know anything 'absolutely' so I'm not going to state that about the non existence of god either. I have not quantified my doubt; I simply think it unlikely. I confess to being wishy washy. I've written 'very unlikely' and simply 'unlikely.'

At any rate I feel assured enough that when I think of it, it bothers me that none of us is going to be able to say, "See, I was right," after death, because I also believe that when the brain is gone, so are we. No soul. None there either to be tortured or rewarded. This might bother me, except I keep in mind that I won't be there to be aware of it. So I don't mind. I've had 64 years. I wouldn't mind another 20 or so, but I'm guessing that when my time comes it will be a relief to become nothing.

Not as much of a change for me, as for some.

If I didn't have false humility, I wouldn't have any.

[TheTruth101]

....Why are there no agnostic Hindu's for example? Agnostic Christians? Agnostic Muslims? Why are there no agnostic Pagans?

Because as some level we acknowledge that the concept is grossly dishonest.

Calling agnosticism 'grossly dishonest,' and by implication those who call themselves agnostics is beneath you and violates the rules of this forum and the general rules for civil discussion. Also it is not very intellectually astute. One can be raised in any tradition yet have doubts and suspend belief or simply say 'I don't know' about the truth of the beliefs one was raised with, while still clinging to the traditions.

Are you suggesting that anyone who is not absolutely certain of the truth of one's beliefs is being dishonest? Or that one who is open to doubt, yet wants to believe, wants to remain in his or her tradition is lying to himself or herself?

Your first question assumes facts not in evidence. What is your basis for saying this? One can be agnostic about anything. Atheism BTW is consistent with forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, and if atheism can be consistent, why not agnosticism.

But to close on a lighter note, your comment reminds me of the old Irish joke.

A tourist in Northern Ireland is asked his religious affiliation.
He replies, 'I'm an atheist.'
‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the quick reply.

I am not.

Agnosticism is fine.

I am calling agnostic atheism grotesquely dishonest and I believe I have explained why I have such a string aversion to it.

You are free to disagree of course. It is a debate forum.

Well... I don't think you would call me dishonest, grotesquely or otherwise, but I have no great aversion to being called an agnostic atheist.
- Agnostic atheist- Lacks a belief in god but doesn't know for sure and makes no assertions a god doesn't exist as it was earlier defined in this thread. I gave a more detailed explanation of my view, but the one above roughly applies to me, except I make a the assertion that the Abrahamic god seems very unlikely. I'm simply not absolute about it.

I don't think we know anything 'absolutely' so I'm not going to state that about the non existence of god either. I have not quantified my doubt; I simply think it unlikely. I confess to being wishy washy. I've written 'very unlikely' and simply 'unlikely.'

At any rate I feel assured enough that when I think of it, it bothers me that none of us is going to be able to say, "See, I was right," after death, because I also believe that when the brain is gone, so are we. No soul. None there either to be tortured or rewarded. This might bother me, except I keep in mind that I won't be there to be aware of it. So I don't mind. I've had 64 years. I wouldn't mind another 20 or so, but I'm guessing that when my time comes it will be a relief to become nothing.

Not as much of a change for me, as for some.

If I didn't have false humility, I wouldn't have any.

I'm 31 Danmark and I feel the same way you do, a 'relief' to be nothing. But, it can't be that way you see. Eternity exists and Jesus lives. And trinity lives.

To let you know under raw terms, look at our genitals, how many is that, 3. What does it do, give 'life'.
Same thing for females, how many genitals top and bottom,3. Top and bottom both give 'life'.

I'll prolly erase this post soon, some might see it offensive. But this is trinity manifesting in flesh, from beggining of time, and raw as it gets Dan.

You think God didn't think this through before he made us and everything. Gods word mean divinity, as in devign design. Trinity goes many ways.

[stubbornone]

....Why are there no agnostic Hindu's for example? Agnostic Christians? Agnostic Muslims? Why are there no agnostic Pagans?

Because as some level we acknowledge that the concept is grossly dishonest.

Calling agnosticism 'grossly dishonest,' and by implication those who call themselves agnostics is beneath you and violates the rules of this forum and the general rules for civil discussion. Also it is not very intellectually astute. One can be raised in any tradition yet have doubts and suspend belief or simply say 'I don't know' about the truth of the beliefs one was raised with, while still clinging to the traditions.

Are you suggesting that anyone who is not absolutely certain of the truth of one's beliefs is being dishonest? Or that one who is open to doubt, yet wants to believe, wants to remain in his or her tradition is lying to himself or herself?

Your first question assumes facts not in evidence. What is your basis for saying this? One can be agnostic about anything. Atheism BTW is consistent with forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, and if atheism can be consistent, why not agnosticism.

But to close on a lighter note, your comment reminds me of the old Irish joke.

A tourist in Northern Ireland is asked his religious affiliation.
He replies, 'I'm an atheist.'
‘Would that be a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the quick reply.

I am not.

Agnosticism is fine.

I am calling agnostic atheism grotesquely dishonest and I believe I have explained why I have such a string aversion to it.

You are free to disagree of course. It is a debate forum.

Well... I don't think you would call me dishonest, grotesquely or otherwise, but I have no great aversion to being called an agnostic atheist.
- Agnostic atheist- Lacks a belief in god but doesn't know for sure and makes no assertions a god doesn't exist as it was earlier defined in this thread. I gave a more detailed explanation of my view, but the one above roughly applies to me, except I make a the assertion that the Abrahamic god seems very unlikely. I'm simply not absolute about it.

I don't think we know anything 'absolutely' so I'm not going to state that about the non existence of god either. I have not quantified my doubt; I simply think it unlikely. I confess to being wishy washy. I've written 'very unlikely' and simply 'unlikely.'

At any rate I feel assured enough that when I think of it, it bothers me that none of us is going to be able to say, "See, I was right," after death, because I also believe that when the brain is gone, so are we. No soul. None there either to be tortured or rewarded. This might bother me, except I keep in mind that I won't be there to be aware of it. So I don't mind. I've had 64 years. I wouldn't mind another 20 or so, but I'm guessing that when my time comes it will be a relief to become nothing.

Not as much of a change for me, as for some.

If I didn't have false humility, I wouldn't have any.

The difference is that you can explain why and how you reach your conclusions. You are not abandoning your burden of proof or support. You are engaging logically, politely, civilly.

You are not, with one hand, disparaging Christians as lunatics (based solely on our faith choice, and then turning around and claiming you have no burden of support to your claims of lunacy in others because you are an agnostic atheist.

Indeed, I have yet to see you, anywhere on this forum, attempt to use agnostic atheism to extricate yourself from a debate to save face.

Although you may be called one, you certainly don't seem to define yourself as one or demand that others call you an agnostic atheist.

You are what honest atheists are supposed to be.

You do not believe in God, can explain why, although you maintain a mind open enough to explore the possibility that you may be wrong. Not much to disagree with there.

Its only when such sentiments, as you can do with ANY sentiment, are taken to extremes such as relieving atheists entirely of the burden of proof that they become problematic.

[SailingCyclops]

To let you know under raw terms, look at our genitals, how many is that, 3. What does it do, give 'life'.
Same thing for females, how many genitals top and bottom,3. Top and bottom both give 'life'.

I'll prolly erase this post soon, some might see it offensive. But this is trinity manifesting in flesh, from beggining of time, and raw as it gets Dan.

Oh man! I have to remember never be drinking coffee when I read any of your posts. You just caused coffee to come squirting out of my nose

This is hilarious! Three genitals? Three? Two tits and a genitalia? What about the fourth? Is that one just for fun? Or is that where these ideas come from? That's your proof of the trinity? BTW Human male tits don't "give life", why do we men have tits?

Please give even one reference other than your own wild imagination showing this relationship.

I will clean up this coffee mess and wait till my nose stops burning while you dig up an answer.

[TheTruth101]

To let you know under raw terms, look at our genitals, how many is that, 3. What does it do, give 'life'.
Same thing for females, how many genitals top and bottom,3. Top and bottom both give 'life'.

I'll prolly erase this post soon, some might see it offensive. But this is trinity manifesting in flesh, from beggining of time, and raw as it gets Dan.

Oh man! I have to remember never be drinking coffee when I read any of your posts. You just caused coffee to come squirting out of my nose

This is hilarious! Three genitals? Three? Two tits and a genitalia? What about the fourth? Is that one just for fun? Or is that where these ideas come from? That's your proof of the trinity? BTW Human male tits don't "give life", why do we men have tits?

Please give even one reference other than your own wild imagination showing this relationship.

I will clean up this coffee mess and wait till my nose stops burning while you dig up an answer.

Your actually mocking this important post. This is a divine design manifesting physically. God thoughtvof how we are made accordance with spiritual nature.

Consider a genital and testicles. How many is that, 3. What does it do, give 'life'.

A vagina and breasts, what does it do. Give life both ways. Top (lactation to infants) and bottom, even an atheist knows answer to that one.

[SailingCyclops]

Your actually mocking this important post. This is a divine design manifesting physically. God thoughtvof how we are made accordance with spiritual nature.

Says you and who else? Please provide one citation claiming what you have just claimed. Just one.