Herman Wouk, on beliefs...

[cnorman18]

Something I've often sensed, but found very gracefully expressed in Wouk's words:

Religious people tend to encounter, among those who are not, a cemented certainty that belief in God is a crutch for the weak and the fearful...Now the belief in God may turn out at the last trump to be a mistake. Meantime, let us be quite clear, it is not merely the comfort of the simple--though it is that too, much to its glory--it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred, each in his own way....speaking of crutches--Freud can be a crutch, Marx can be a crutch, rationalism can be a crutch, and atheism can be two canes and a pair of iron braces. We none of us have all the answers, nor are we likely to have. But in the country of the halt, the man who is surest he has no limp may be the worst-crippled.
Herman Wouk, This Is My God: The Jewish Way of Life

[Zzyzx]

.

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

Actually, EJ, the Atheist position (according to Atheists -- not Theists) is "I do not believe in gods" -- period -- full stop.

SOME Atheists (often referred to as Hard Atheists) deny the existence of "gods" but that is NOT required in Atheism -- which means "Without belief in gods."

Theists often attempt to inject denial of gods into a definition of Atheism; however, that is just another straw man attempt.

In my view "Non-Theist" (meaning not a theist -- not a believer in gods) fits perfectly without anyone being able to tag on additional baggage assuming denial or whatever suits their fancy.


In final analysis, EJ, we are ALL Agnostics (whether we admit it or not). We DO NOT KNOW about "gods." Some may believe they know, think they know, claim to know -- but all that is all a matter of personal OPINION only. If we (humans) KNEW about "gods" there would be no question, no debate, no dissension and no thousands of proposed gods and religions.

Reading ancient opinion pieces (called holy books), listening to sermons by self-identified preachers and prophets, and/or having psychological / emotional episodes does NOT constitute knowledge about supernatural entities.

If such things exist (which is entirely possible) I would expect them to be well beyond human comprehension.

[Elijah John]

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the atheist position. There is no reason to assume that strong atheists are gnostic. To be a strong atheist is simply to believe gods don't exist, not to know it.

Most strong atheists are not gnostic, so it's unfair to say that we "usually" are.

"gnostic" means knowing or knowledge, a-gnostic means "without knowing". What then, if what you say is accurate, is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

In my experience, an atheist asserts there IS no God, and an agnostic that they do not know.

It is a matter of degree and dogma, it seems to me.

Are you denying that Atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid in their NONbelief, as Fundamentalists are in their belief?

Granted, it may be different in your case, and if so, I would probably call you an "Agnostic" and not an Atheist.

But of course, you can call yourself whatever you like.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Zzyzx]

Not a straw man, Z, as you suggest. The first definition from the American Heritage dictionary of "atheism" is:

1) a:"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God." and:
b: "The doctrine that there is no God"

Contrast that to their definition of "agnostic":

1) "One who believes there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility."

Those are my understandings of the two terms, and are dictionary definitions. No strawman here. I read from these two definitions that Atheists DENY the possibility of the existence of God, and are therefore dogmatic about it.

If they allow for the possibility, but say there is no evidence, they are "agnostic" according to these two definitions.

I do not think it is accurate to claim that we are ALL agnostics, as Theist more than hold a "possibility" that God exists, they BELIEVE God exists, a PROBABILITY. If they claim to KNOW it for certain, they are fundamentalist and dogmatic in their belief.

Seems to me then that some "Atheists " here, who claim the mantle, are actually "Agnostics" according to these definitions, if they allow for the POSSIBILITY that there is a God. I would say an Agnostic allows for the possibility, but leans towards the probablilty that there is no God. A Theist, on the other hand, holds the probability that there IS a God.

[wiploc]

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the atheist position. There is no reason to assume that strong atheists are gnostic. To be a strong atheist is simply to believe gods don't exist, not to know it.

Most strong atheists are not gnostic, so it's unfair to say that we "usually" are.

"gnostic" means knowing or knowledge, a-gnostic means "without knowing". What then, if what you say is accurate, is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

Lets divide people into three categories with regards to belief:

A: people who believe gods exist.
B: people who don't believe either way.
C: people who believe gods don't exist.

And two categories with regards to knowledge:

X: people who know whether gods exist.
Y: people who don't know whether gods exist.

In what I call the old nomenclature, we used these labels:

A: theist
B: agnostic
C: atheist
X: gnostic
Y: agnostic

Note that endless confusion is caused by B and Y both having the name "agnostic."

These days, most atheists use the new nomenclature:

A: theist
B: weak atheist
C: strong atheist
X: gnostic
Y: agnostic

We often use X and Y as modifiers of A or C. Thus, my mother, who said that she struggles with her faith every day, is YA (agnostic theist). And I am a YC (agnostic strong atheist) because, while I can prove unequivocally that the SCG (standard Christian god (the one who would help more if he could, and who can, and who doesn't)) doesn't exist, there are other gods (some not invented yet) that I can't disprove---but I still believe they don't exist.

EJ (may we call you EJ?), you wrote:

I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

You were comparing YA (agnostic theists) to XC (gnostic strong atheists), to conclude that theists are more reasonable. That's no more fair than if I argued that atheists are more reasonable by comparing XA (gnostic theists) to YC (agnostic strong athiests).

Now, to answer your specific question above: "What ... is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?"

In the new nomenclature, agnostics (Y) don't know whether gods exist, and atheists (B and C) don't hold the belief that gods do exist.

In the old nomenclature, agnostics (B and Y) either don't believe either that gods do or do not exist, or don't know whether gods exist; and atheists (C) believe that gods do not exist.

In my experience, an atheist asserts there IS no God, and an agnostic that they do not know.

There are no gods. I believe that. I can't prove it, but I believe it. I self-identify as an atheist. More specifically, I am a strong atheist, but I generally just use the word "atheist."

People who self-identify as agnostics are often "strong agnostics," people who could say, "I don't know whether gods exist, and you don't know either. Nobody knows. Anyone who thinks she knows is fooling herself. Agnosticism is the only rational position."

You can use either the new nomenclature or the old, but either way you want a normalized database (everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into multiple categories).

One common mistake is to define agnostics/weak atheists as not believing either way because there is no evidence. If you add that "because there is no evidence" into the definition, then you need more categories for people in category B for other reasons.

It is a matter of degree and dogma, it seems to me.

I'm after clarity.

Are you denying that Atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid in their NONbelief, as Fundamentalists are in their belief?

Certainly not. Met an atheist in Texas who told me that science has proven that gods don't exist. When I asked him to explain, he just said, "They proved it."

I'm on record, somewhere, maybe in this thread? as saying that religion seems to strike at random. That is, it doesn't just take people who are otherwise unreasonable.

Granted, it may be different in your case, and if so, I would probably call you an "Agnostic" and not an Atheist.

But I believe that gods don't exist. Do you really want your nomenclature to be a confused jumble?:

A: theists
B & Y: agnostics
XC: atheists

That leaves me out of the system entirely. Or are you really going to class me with the agnostics?

A: theists both gnostic and agnostic
B, Y, & YC: Anyone who doesn't believe either way, plus anyone who doesn't know, including people who are convinced gods don't exist but realize that they don't have proof.
XC: Only those people who believe gods don't exist, and who think that belief is knowledge.

That's a mess. You'll find few if any people you can clearly communicate with using that system. You won't be able to support that system with dictionaries or current usage. You'd be better off making new names than using the old names with new definitions.

But of course, you can call yourself whatever you like.

Thanks.

[Goat]

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the atheist position. There is no reason to assume that strong atheists are gnostic. To be a strong atheist is simply to believe gods don't exist, not to know it.

Most strong atheists are not gnostic, so it's unfair to say that we "usually" are.

"gnostic" means knowing or knowledge, a-gnostic means "without knowing". What then, if what you say is accurate, is the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?

In my experience, an atheist asserts there IS no God, and an agnostic that they do not know.

It is a matter of degree and dogma, it seems to me.

Are you denying that Atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid in their NONbelief, as Fundamentalists are in their belief?

Granted, it may be different in your case, and if so, I would probably call you an "Agnostic" and not an Atheist.

But of course, you can call yourself whatever you like.

You can be an 'agnostic theist' or you can be an agnostic athiest.

"I do not know if there is a God, but I believe in one' is the agnostic theist.

"I do not believe in any God" does not say 'I know there is no God'. I know very few people who say "I know there is no God'