Are most atheists really agnostics?

[harvey1]

It seems to me that the majority of atheists are improperly classified. Most atheists are really agnostic. When pushed to the point to where they are asked to provide strong evidence to support their view that God does not exist, they come back with an agnostic stance, viz. "I do not think theism can provide strong enough evidence to show that God exists." Some atheists are misclassified into a pantheistic view where they believe that God are laws of nature that guide the universe according to some unifying principles.

So, are there reasons to think that most atheists are really improperly classified agnostics?

[harvey1]

I maintain that this whole "atheist" vs. "agnostic" thing is quite trivial. It unnecessarily confuses the issue.

Take it up with Huxley.

"weak" atheists who claim to be fairly certain he doesn't, but admit it can't be proven, which sounds very much like a "classical" agnostic, who according Huxley, admits that the question is unanswerable

You need to distinguish strong agnosticism from weak agnosticism. Weak agnostics believe the question is answerable, just that we lack the information to answer it. The weak atheist thinks the question is answerable in the negative, but doesn't believe the current evidence necessitates that God doesn't exist. The weak atheist could believe that perhaps next week more evidence will come to our attention that shows that God really does exist afterall, whereas the strong atheist couldn't hold this position.

as distinguished from an "everyday" agnostic who thinks the word means "I haven't made up my mind yet."

I agree, weak agnostics probably make up the largest segment of the agnostic population.

Then some people (Bernee, I think, is an example) are strong atheists with respect to the Abrahamic God but weak atheists, or classical agnostics, with respect to the generic Sentient Creative Force.

I don't think it makes for clarity to use these philosophical terms outside of their intended use. It is well understood that an agnostic might reject the existence of the Christian God. The label of agnostic doesn't mean that someone is not sure if Jesus was resurrected, it only means that they lack evidence that there is some kind of God. If you want to say that you don't believe there is a Abrahamic God but there might be some other religious view of God, then there are perhaps no exact terms for this. There are a few, such as pantheist, deist, process theists, open theists, etc..

None of it matters.

It does matter because if atheism is wrong and even atheists think so, then it is high time that people stop calling themselves atheist and stop having titles of magazines using that term. If it doesn't matter, then why don't you just call yourself a theist, and then explain to people that you really don't believe there's a God.

There are people who believe in a personal God, and they are called Theists. The people who are not members of this set are called Non-theists.

I disagree. For example, there are process theists who do not necessarily subscribe to a personal God. Personal theism is just a segment within theism.

The basic debate is between Theists and Non-Theists. Whether the non-theist knows there is no God, from a logical perspective or whatever, or strongly suspects it, or doesn't think either side has resolved it, the theist is still charged with making his case for existence. Failing to do so further justifies all non-theist positions.

I think this is confusing the issues a bit with this "non-theism." Agnosticism is based on evidence, and it simply states that no one has made their case with regard to God's existence or non-existence. The agnostics are perhaps the most unique of any group. Which, I think, is fitting since Huxley felt that way when he went to his meetings at the Metaphysical Society:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ' gnosis '—had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were "-ists" of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to coyer himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took."

[harvey1]

It seems to me that the majority of theists are improperly classified. Most theists (I am not including Harvey1 in with most theists) are really agnostic. When pushed to the point to where they are asked to provide strong evidence to support their view that their particular God does exist, they come back with an agnostic stance, viz. "I do not think atheism can provide strong enough evidence to show that God does not exist. You must have faith." So, are there reasons to think that most theists are really improperly classified agnostics?

McCulloch, we might not like the reasons someone has for their acceptance or rejection of a belief (and hence have a label applied to them because of their acceptance or rejection), but that doesn't change the fact that this is what they believe. Theists are people who think the evidence in the universe is such that they should be a theist. If they don't think the evidence is convincing, but they are theists anyway, then they are irrational in their belief. I would say that there are very few irrational people like that. Perhaps their reasons are personal, such as they feel the warmth of Jesus in their heart; or perhaps their reasons are emotional reasons, such as their grandmother asked that they remain theists throughout their life despite their skeptical minds; or perhaps their reasons are practical reasons, such as their husband will kick them out of the house if they say they are agnostic or atheist. All of those are reasons to hold a belief. They are not convincing reasons, but they are reasons why someone should be classified as a theist and not as an agnostic. If there are absolutely no reasons for their belief, then this sounds irrational to me. In which case they are just crazy and I don't think it matters what they believe.

The reality is that we are all agnostic regarding the spiritual world, the soul, afterlife, heaven and the like.

I think you mean to say that we are all ignorant regarding the spiritual world. I wouldn't agree with that, however.

I use the description of atheist mainly because, to most people, the classification of agnostic conveys the idea that I have more uncertainty regarding the existence of their particular god than I really do.

This is why it is important to keep the term agnostic free from misclassification. The more agnostics who classify themselves as atheist the more likely the agnostic label will be misrepresented. Since Flew wrote a paper in 1984 suggesting that agnostics are actually atheists, there's been a great deal of misclassification going on. Few in the philosophical community agreed with Flew, but unfortunately atheists made a public appeal to agnostics to label themselves as "weak atheists." This is unfortunate. In my view, theists should do the same and start having agnostics label themselves as theists. That ought to confuse the issues enough so that everyone is frustrated.

None of us can be absolutely sure that the entire universe including an apparent history was not created 10 minutes ago by an almighty spirit or that we are not just bits in some incredibly complex computer-like simulation.

Philosophy already has designated terms for this. It is called skepticism and fallibilism.

[McCulloch]

McCulloch, we might not like the reasons someone has for their acceptance or rejection of a belief (and hence have a label applied to them because of their acceptance or rejection), but that doesn't change the fact that this is what they believe. Theists are people who think the evidence in the universe is such that they should be a theist. If they don't think the evidence is convincing, but they are theists anyway, then they are irrational in their belief. I would say that there are very few irrational people like that.

I suspect that your belief that there are very few irrational theists is naive. You should speak to my mother-in-law!

Perhaps their reasons are personal, such as they feel the warmth of Jesus in their heart; or perhaps their reasons are emotional reasons, such as their grandmother asked that they remain theists throughout their life despite their skeptical minds; or perhaps their reasons are practical reasons, such as their husband will kick them out of the house if they say they are agnostic or atheist. All of those are reasons to hold a belief. They are not convincing reasons, but they are reasons why someone should be classified as a theist and not as an agnostic. If there are absolutely no reasons for their belief, then this sounds irrational to me. In which case they are just crazy and I don't think it matters what they believe.

It seems as if you have a double standard. Those theists who do not have convincing reasons to believe in a god but believe anyway should be classified as theists. But those atheists who may not have convincing reasons not to believe in a god should be classified as agnostics.

The reality is that we are all agnostic regarding the spiritual world, the soul, afterlife, heaven and the like.

I think you mean to say that we are all ignorant regarding the spiritual world. I wouldn't agree with that, however.

I am not sure that I get the distinction. Agnostic = a (not) + gnosis (knowing). Ignorant = lacking information or knowledge.

I use the description of atheist mainly because, to most people, the classification of agnostic conveys the idea that I have more uncertainty regarding the existence of their particular god than I really do.

This is why it is important to keep the term agnostic free from misclassification. The more agnostics who classify themselves as atheist the more likely the agnostic label will be misrepresented. Since Flew wrote a paper in 1984 suggesting that agnostics are actually atheists, there's been a great deal of misclassification going on. Few in the philosophical community agreed with Flew, but unfortunately atheists made a public appeal to agnostics to label themselves as "weak atheists." This is unfortunate. In my view, theists should do the same and start having agnostics label themselves as theists. That ought to confuse the issues enough so that everyone is frustrated.

Sounds like fun.

None of us can be absolutely sure that the entire universe including an apparent history was not created 10 minutes ago by an almighty spirit or that we are not just bits in some incredibly complex computer-like simulation.

Philosophy already has designated terms for this. It is called skepticism and fallibilism.

I knew that philosophy did have terms for these ideas, but I had forgotten them. Some day I will spend the time necessary to get myself up to speed on basic philosophy, but for now, pressures of work and life prevent me.

[harvey1]

I suspect that your belief that there are very few irrational theists is naive. You should speak to my mother-in-law!

Well, I mean irrational in the sense that they don't have a reason for their belief. They might still be irrational if their reason is not at all reasonable.

It seems as if you have a double standard. Those theists who do not have convincing reasons to believe in a god but believe anyway should be classified as theists. But those atheists who may not have convincing reasons not to believe in a god should be classified as agnostics.

I don't think so. If an atheist really doesn't believe God exists, then they are an atheist. It might be a very stupid reason. For example, perhaps they think God wouldn't have let the Boston Red Socks beat the New York Yankees, and therefore they came to the conclusion God doesn't exist. They are atheists regardless how dumb that reason is.

I am not sure that I get the distinction. Agnostic = a (not) + gnosis (knowing). Ignorant = lacking information or knowledge.

Well, I didn't realize that you shifted the meaning of the philosophical usage of that term to an informal usage of agnostic. However, I wasn't able to find an English definition where agnostic means ignorance. It can mean uncommitted or doubtful without referring to a particular philosophical belief.

I knew that philosophy did have terms for these ideas, but I had forgotten them. Some day I will spend the time necessary to get myself up to speed on basic philosophy, but for now, pressures of work and life prevent me.

Well, that's why many philosophy students are serving pizzas.

[bernee51]

So, does that mean that you put string theory in the same category as a belief in Zeus?

I don't knoe enuf about string theory to comment.

Evidence of non-existence?

Well, look at it from my view. You are advocating a belief without evidence.

You view is not my view. I am not advocating belief without evidence . In my opinion you are. I 'advocate' non belief because there is no evidence that I am willing or able to accept as such.

Your argument is that the other guy lacks of evidence, but how is this an argument for your own position if you do not have any evidence?

See it as lack of evidence being the evidence if you wish.

A claim the christian god exists is, by default, claiming the non existence of Allah because, despite their common anscestory in Yahweh they have contradictory attributes. What evidence does a christian have of the non existence of Allah.

When you argue particular conceptions of God, the question is whether that particular conception is consistent with what we know of the universe. So, for example, if God is like a man or like some immature brat, the evidence against this view is that we evolved and that our concepts of God are highly anthrocentric. This is evidence against any anthrocentric belief of God, and therefore any religion who endorses such a view of God should either show that their view is not anthrocentric, or argue that anthrocentric views are probably right.

So does Allah exist? Is Allah god?

Gauging by all that you wrote in the past, I'm surprised that you consider yourself an atheist.

Life is full of surprises.

I'm not sure what it is about the agnostic label that you find so unattractive.

I find nothing unattractive about the label 'agnostic'

There have been many brilliant agnostics, and you shouldn't feel ashamed of your agnostic beliefs.

Now you are being patronizing.

[harvey1]

I 'advocate' non belief because there is no evidence that I am willing or able to accept as such.

So, you are advocating agnosticism, not atheism.

See it as lack of evidence being the evidence if you wish.

Well, first, I don't buy into your concept of evidence. Your argument as to what constitutes evidence is not convincing to me. Secondly, your position is one of agnosticism despite your constant inclusion of the term atheism. You should just drop referring to yourself as an atheist since by your own lights you are not an atheist.

So does Allah exist? Is Allah god?

I really don't know much about Allah. Do I think God has a name? I do not. Do I think a name can be descriptive of God? Sure, why not? What does the name Allah mean and I'll tell you if I think it is descriptive with my concept of God.

Life is full of surprises.

You speak more like a Buddhist monk on a mountain top. Perhaps you missed your calling?

I find nothing unattractive about the label 'agnostic'

So, you are agnostic and have no problem with that description? It seems like it perfectly describes your beliefs with regard to God's existence. Now, would you be a weak agnostic or a strong agnostic?

[bernee51]

I 'advocate' non belief because there is no evidence that I am willing or able to accept as such.

So, you are advocating agnosticism, not atheism.

If you insist.

I have said previously...as far as any possible definition of god you may come up with I am agnostic.

As far as any definition I have seen so far I am atheist.

See it as lack of evidence being the evidence if you wish.

Well, first, I don't buy into your concept of evidence. Your argument as to what constitutes evidence is not convincing to me.

It is not for me to convince you.

Secondly, your position is one of agnosticism despite your constant inclusion of the term atheism.

I have aknowledged my boundaries between atheism and agnosticism.

I would be interested to see your criteria for 'god hood'

Life is full of surprises.

You speak more like a Buddhist monk on a mountain top. Perhaps you missed your calling?

The philosophy of buddhism has much in it to attract me.

So, you are agnostic and have no problem with that description? It seems like it perfectly describes your beliefs with regard to God's existence.

Which god are you talking about. Can you describe it for me?

Now, would you be a weak agnostic or a strong agnostic?

Very droll Harv. Good to see the soh is still intact.

[harvey1]

Bernee, in 10 years you'll be a theist and trying to convert all of us to fundamental Christianity...

[bernee51]

Bernee, in 10 years you'll be a theist and trying to convert all of us to fundamental Christianity...

god only knows Harv, god only knows.

8)

[juliod]

So, you are advocating agnosticism, not atheism.

No.

I'm not satisfied with the discussion in this thread so far.

As I see it, agnosticism is a posative belief than knowledge of god is impossible. It is not in any way compatible with doubt or disbelief. It's a particular and fairly rigid philosophy, but I think people use it too commonly as a middle-ground between theism and atheism.

Atheism is very different. In general, atheists will accept that knowledge of god is possible, if there were a god.

It would be possible to be an agnostic atheist if you stated that you did not believe in god, and that if god did exist it would be impossible to tell anyway. But I know of no one who holds that position.

As the strongest of strong atheists, I hold that only strong atheism is a reasonable position to hold. I have even more contempt for agnostics and weak atheists than for theists.

I can say that my view is definitively opposed to agnosticism. I hold that not only is conclusive evidence about god available, but enough such evidence has been accumulated (long ago) to disprove god to any reasonable investigator. (Unfortunately, "reasonable investigators" are not very common.)

DanZ