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?

[QED]

Most? As in majority? Silly question if you ask me. Of course there are some who deserve a different label but there are also genuine paid-up members of the club you seek to abolish. How would we go about assesing the numbers? I think you just want to make the point that you don't judge their arguments as being particularly strong. If anything I'd say mostly that's becasue atheists seem not to be so good (successful) at debating. I think this has something to do with the evolution of religion which has had thousands of years of practice in polishing its arguments which, due to being founded largely on the invisible, are adept at avoiding direct hits from critics.

I also feel like mentioning that I find it quite ironic that a significant number of "Good Christians" on these forums resort to misrepresentation and other devious tactics to maintain their position. You know what goes on and you've seen how helpless it can render people on the other side of the argument. Ironic becasue most (if not all) atheists here genuinely seem to be above this sort of behaviour. This is not so much because of their good character, but because with the material they have to work with, they don't find the need to resort to such tactics IMO.

[vacantcardboardbox]

I firmly believe God does not exist.

Why? Theism cannot provide evidence that one does exist.

This makes me agnostic? How else should I base my opinion. Do you have any suggestions how I can travel outside the space-time continuum and take some candid photos for proof?

[harvey1]

I firmly believe God does not exist. Why? Theism cannot provide evidence that one does exist. This makes me agnostic? How else should I base my opinion. Do you have any suggestions how I can travel outside the space-time continuum and take some candid photos for proof?

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that humans possess knowledge about the way the world really is?

[Nyril]

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

No, not at all. Any sort of classification along these lines typically requires the consent of the named. I'm certain there are a number of groups that don't believe you to be a Christian, and I'm just as certain you don't accept their judgement and call yourself something else as a result.

To come up to people and tell them that they are agnostic without first ascertaining that they may be confused and wanting input is meaningless.

[bernee51]

It seems to me that the majority of atheists are improperly classified. Most atheists are really agnostic.

Isn't this the topic of a previous thread...also raised by you?

I firmly and whole heartedly believe that the god of christianity and all other gods that, to date, have been defined as such are myth.

Why...there is no evidence of their existence.

When pushed to the point to where they are asked to provide strong evidence to support their view that God does not exist,

Evidence of non-existence?

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.

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

So you say.

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.
~ Democritus

[The Happy Humanist]

I maintain that this whole "atheist" vs. "agnostic" thing is quite trivial. It unnecessarily confuses the issue. There are "strong" atheists who claim to have knowledge that God doesn't exist, and "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, as distinguished from an "everyday" agnostic who thinks the word means "I haven't made up my mind yet." 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.

None of it matters.

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. 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.

[edited for clarification]

[harvey1]

Any sort of classification along these lines typically requires the consent of the named. I'm certain there are a number of groups that don't believe you to be a Christian, and I'm just as certain you don't accept their judgement and call yourself something else as a result.

Religion, Nyril, is different. The reason that religion is different is because there are many factors in determining whether someone is a "Christian." For example, there's historical disputes between Protestants and Catholics, Protestants and Protestants, etc.. And, let's not forget the myriad of New Testament interpretational issues where it is not all that clear what makes you a Christian. For example, must a Christian be baptized to be a Christian? Fully immersed or just water sprinkled? Are babies Christian? If not, are they heathen? Etc., etc..

In the case of philosophy, the situation is not nearly as complex. There's only a few factors and traditionally these factors have well-understood bounderies. For atheism, it is popularly understood by philosophers that atheists believe that God does not exist because the evidence strongly suggests that. For agnosticism, it is popularly understood that agnostics are not sure that God exists or not because the evidence is inconclusive. There's really no confusion between these two positions. Often some atheists want there to exist some confusion because they have trouble defending their position, so they retreat to agnosticism. But, this retreat is exactly the reason why some atheists have been misclassified.

[McCulloch]

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?

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?

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

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.

[harvey1]

I firmly and whole heartedly believe that the god of christianity and all other gods that, to date, have been defined as such are myth. Why...there is no evidence of their existence.

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

Evidence of non-existence?

Well, look at it from my view. You are advocating a belief without evidence. 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? The most you can say is that there is no evidence either for or against such a proposition, and therefore you remain agnostic about that proposition. This is why agnostics reject atheistic arguments. They don't believe there is substantial evidence produced by atheists to support their argument in the non-existence of God.

In the case of some ridiculous belief (e.g. the IPU), the evidence is that it is a ridiculous belief. Whatever makes it ridiculous is the evidence against it. Hence, an agnostic might reject the existence of the IPU whereas the existence of God they remain steadfast in their position that atheists have not made a strong enough case against God's existence, or at least some particular conceptions of God .

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.

Gauging by all that you wrote in the past, I'm surprised that you consider yourself an atheist. I'm not sure what it is about the agnostic label that you find so unattractive. There have been many brilliant agnostics, and you shouldn't feel ashamed of your agnostic beliefs.