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.)

[Divine Insight]

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.)

Based on the labels you have offered, the ones that best fit me would be

- Agnostic theist- Believes in a god but doesn't know for sure.
- Weak agnostic - Evidence for god could be known

And that would translate into the horribly inept sounding title of "Weak Agnostic Theist".

Certainly not a labeling system that I would chose on my own. It sounds horrible insecure and of course very "weak" as the labeling system uses this very adjective.


This bring me to my own personal way of viewing this:

First, I break things into two realms, the logos and the pathos.

Logos or logic, is reason based on intellectual reasoning.
Pathos, is intuitive feelings, based on what I feel deep inside without any logical analysis involved.

Then I acknowledge my views of life from these two perspectives.

I also further break this up into two categories:

Category #1: My thoughts on a potential abstract mystical or spiritual essence of life.

I am:

Intellectual Agnostic = Leaning heavily toward it being very possible.
Intuitive Theist = Just about certain that life is indeed mystical or spiritual.

Category #2: My thoughts on the Hebrew or Abrahamic view of God.

I am:

Intellectual Atheist = I'm intellectually certain that the Biblical fables of God are absolutely false.
Intuitive Atheist = My intuition about the Biblical God matches my intellectual certainty completely.


So whether I'm atheist, agnostic, or a theist, can depend on which religion or philosophy is being considered as well.

[SailingCyclops]

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.

Well Star, I don't believe I fit any of the definitions you presented in your opening post.

I do not have any concept of god. What is god? When someone references a god, I will ask them to define it and then prove it exists. There are as many concepts of god out there as there are people claiming belief in it. Therefor I would deal with each separate god claim on it's own merit and by it's own definition. Making a claim about something which by it's very definition is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, to me, is false by default; the null hypothesis.

[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.

[TheTruth101]

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.

This is rather truly spoken from shallowness.

One, if God is not like us (emotions) he won't be able to judge us. Simply because he won't understand how to judge us of our deeds. Good or bad.

Not just abarahamic religions consist of judgement. Buddhism is said one gets a better reincarnation if proven of their deeds. Again, 'proven' is of judgement.

It's not just abrahamic relgions, but of all religions consist of.judgement at one point or nother.

[Divine Insight]

I do not have any concept of god. What is god? When someone references a god, I will ask them to define it and then prove it exists. There are as many concepts of god out there as there are people claiming belief in it. Therefor I would deal with each separate god claim on it's own merit and by it's own definition. Making a claim about something which by it's very definition is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, to me, is false by default; the null hypothesis.

I agree with this approach.

In fact, I hold that 99.9% of intellectually believing in my "God" boils down to having a correct understanding of the concept.

And even then, it can't be 'proven', it can only argued in what I personally believe are very convincing arguments.

Or perhaps to put it another way, in order to refute my concept of "God" alternative arguments must necessarily be given to support alternative explanations for the evidence. And thus far, I have never heard any alternative arguments that have any merit at all in terms of explaining the evidence, IMHO.

Of course, in the end I will always confess the following:

1. Yes, the merit of all of these arguments appears to be a matter of personal opinion.
2. No, it's not important that a person needs to believe in "God", unless it's important to them.
3. And Yes, you can indeed sail through life quite wonderfully without having any need to believe in any kind of God concept at all. If that's not a problem for you, it most certainly isn't a problem for "God" either.

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

I would say the same thing to you.

The evidence for God is found directly in the definition of the God concept.

My God concept is based squarely upon this evidence.

Again, I agree the evidence itself is controversial, but I have yet to hear an alternative explanation for this evidence.

The evidence exists.

The only question that remains is what kind of explanation you are willing to accept to explain this evidence.

[stubbornone]

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.)

What this is, is the last redoubt of the illogical whose atheism is not atheism, but nihilism - an unnatural, and wholly illogical take on religion - and agnostic atheism, the whole sale usurpation of another philosophical school in order to manufacture excuses for poor behavior.

Let actually look at this, and see if we can figure a few things out.

#1 - Why does no other school of religious thought ever seek to add 'agnostic' to is claims? 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.

Take for example if you were in a conversation with a Hindu, and he told you his beliefs and then said, "But, I am merely an agnostic Hindu, so I am not required to prove any of it." You would be taken askance would you not?

Now imagine for a second if Christians on this forum told you the story of Jesus, and, as we see in the OP, you dismissal of it was simply tossed aside because we are merely agnostic Christians ... and we have no logical burden of proof. Therefore our claims MUST be true.

Any atheist worth his salt would scream bloody murder at the very concept, but we who are not atheist are simply supposed to accept this tomfoolery as logical - rather than excuse?

Silliness.

#2 - Lets examine the concept in regard to ANY thing, especially something that we know is true.

Imagine for a second you climbed a vast Himalayan Chain with a small group, and seeking to lighten the load you took only the bare essentials of food, water, hygiene, and climbing/survival gear. At the top of this mountain you find a old man who has been cut off from the world for decades, subsisting on gathering and hunting in this high Himalayan home.

Now, imagine you said, "Wow, I wish I had brought my i-pad to document this!"

And the old man turns to you and says, "What is an I-pad?"

Stop and consider for a moment if the default position is the rabid, spittle inducing denial of the i-pad - as is claimed so often by agnostic atheists about God?

Certainly, if before you had a chance to even explain what an i-pad was, the rabiod denial thereof would be ... rather emotional would it not?

But lets assume this is a mild mannered old man, and not an agnostic atheist bent on denying something with no evidence whatsoever.

So you explain what it is, and what it does, and this old man, perhaps rightly doubts that you are telling the truth, that you are simply attempting to bamboozle him. You can assure him of your honor in this statement, that it does indeed exist ... and certainly the other members of the journey will attest to the reality of the i-pad.

Agh, but the old man says, clearly these biased members of your party are all lying to back you up ... its a conspiracy you see.

You point out that there is no way you could have done so, as you had no idea that the old man did not know what an i-pad was, and didn't even know he existed until you stumbled upon him.

At which point reasonableness begins to kick in. The old man demands proof positive in his hands or he will not believe. You point out that it took weeks to climb into the area, and a return journey may not be possible due to weather and the simple happenstance of finding the old man. Perhaps it would be better if the old man accompanied you down the mountain.

But the old man, rejecting your sincerity entirely, points out that the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the person making the claim that something exists.

And, too quote: I would expect ample evidence for a lunatic such as the personal computing device that operates with hands-on touch as described by your group, if in fact such 'wondrously outrageous' thing exists. How stupid do you take this old man to be?

And at some point the group must leave, the curmudgeonly old man remains absolutely convinced that the i-pad is not real ... because it doesn't manage to walk up a mountain TO him - therefore it is not real.

And the group goes down thinking not, "What an intelligent old man that was," but instead, "What a stubborn and obtuse old man that was!" Any consideration of his 'logic' in this case must bear in mind that the i-pad is real, despite the application of so called agnostic atheism's claims.

I would use facetime to tell others of this tale, but, as we see routinely on this forum, that would merely be hearsay.

And what we really have is a excuse to not just disagree and deny, but to stagnate and avoid the processes of investigation entirely.

#3 - when we examine the ACTUAL claims of agnostic atheism, we see clear and gaping hole in the analysis. The AA (yes, the Alcoholic Anonymous of the religious world, those addicted to illogic) will claim that there is insufficent evidence of a God, and therefore they have no burden of proof? No, that means they can explain what they checked and how that lead them to a conclusion of insufficiency.

Indeed, anyone who starts off making the claim that they are unsure of whether there is a God, but ends their own claim with: 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 - should probably check their honesty.

Such a person is indeed quite certain there is no God, and the base refusal to explore the processes that lead them to conclude as such can only be taken as a childish excuse.

Strong words you say? When illogic is used to justify the denegration of people based solely on their adherence to a VALID faith choice, one said atheist can not falsify despite the haughty claims to the contrary, such behavior deserves to strongly condemned - a condemnation that is fully earned.

To be an agnostic atheist is to be the atheistic version of an Evolution denier.

[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?

[SailingCyclops]

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

I expect the evidence to come from the one making the claim, whatever that claim happens to be. Why would I walk up a mountain to find evidence for something of which I have no concept or need of? That would be an exercise in futility.

[SailingCyclops]

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

Why? Because you are refering to an Oxymoron. Why are there no religious atheists? Why is noisy silence meaningless? Why is dry water an absurdity? Using oxymorons (things which are mutually exclusive) to make a point is moronic. Surely you can do better.