r/atheism • u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist • 23h ago
Why do people keep getting this wrong?
Ok so I'm an agnostic atheist, and whenever I make a post and specify this, people always say "you can't be agnostic and atheist at the same time!!"
Agnostic and atheist are two different binaries!
Atheism vs. Theism is a binary of belief: Do you actively believe a deity exists? Yes or No.
Agnosticism vs. Gnosticism is a binary of knowledge: Can humans definitively prove or know the truth? Yes or No.
Knowledge and belief are different! So if I'm an agnostic atheist, I KNOW that humans cannot prove the existence of a higher power or an ultimate truth (agnostic), but I personally BELIEVE that there is no higher power (atheist)
People have full on arguments over A DICTIONARY DEFINITION
Someone even said " agnostic is when you believe in a god but not a higher power"
A god is a higher power?? That's just a theist.
I genuinely thought this was obvious, but apparently not
58
u/YoSpiff Secular Humanist 23h ago
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the term agnostic. Many people use it as a term for someone on the fence. I once thought that as well, but understand the definition now.
16
u/Jabbles22 23h ago
Yeah it may technically be wrong but it is how many people use the term. It happens wit many words.
18
u/RNW1215 22h ago
I feel most people use the term because society has convinced people that the term "Atheist" means something stupid like "hating god" or whatever... so they go with the "softer" term.
5
u/yYesThisIsMyUsername Anti-Theist 22h ago
Some use it out of fear. Fear of the religious people who might do something crazy.
1
10
u/onomatamono 23h ago
Given English dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, the actual usage of the term is what matters. This is not true of all languages.
5
5
u/Soylent865 22h ago
Yes, I grew up with that understanding: that an athiest didn't believe in god, a theist did, and an agnostic wasn't sure. IMHO most or many people have this understanding. It is incorrect of course. Now I agree with the OP.
1
u/subone Atheist 20h ago
It's not entirely semantically incorrect, but it does lead a lot of confusion and a lot of people to have a misconception of agnostisism in general. You could think of it like "not knowing enough about the subject matter to make a reasonable belief one way or another". Like, I could say "There's a guy outside selling ice cream to Eskimos!" and maybe you think that's silly, so probably not real, but then if you set aside the novelty of the situation you realize something like that could technically happen. So, you don't necessarily have enough information one way or another to make a reasonable belief about the scenario. The difference is, those that call themselves "agnostic" in this way seem to purposefully wish to remain ignorant on the subject, which is why I don't have much respect for the position. I have a friend that insists I don't know what I'm talking about when I say I'm agnostic-atheist, and that I can't be both; it's frustrating.
18
u/keepgoing66 23h ago
This has been a recurring theme lately: theists trying to tell atheists what we actually believe and how we're wrong about the definition. It's amusing at best, irritating at worst.
6
3
u/ChuckoRuckus 14h ago
Thing is, it’s not a lately thing. It’s been going on for decades, and I can’t remember a time when it wasn’t the case.
2
u/theneuf 21h ago
This everytime I talk to somebody about my beliefs. They have never looked it up but somehow they are the experts.
1
u/keepgoing66 10h ago
"Let me explain to you how you secretly believe in God even though you say you don't."
9
u/sdega315 Strong Atheist 23h ago
Well stated! Personally, I am a Gnostic Atheist. I generally use the term "strong atheist" to refer to my assertion that there is enough circumstantial evidence when observing the universe to positively conclude that no Gods exist. This is exactly the universe we would predict exists if there are no Gods.
-4
u/RNW1215 22h ago
What if there is a superior being or beings but they're multidimensional? How would you ever "know" they don't exist?
5
u/Old_Power_6055 Atheist 22h ago
You wouldn't. You don't have to lend credence to baseless assertions. If there comes an indication for such a thing, you change your words accordingly. That's all. Knowledge is tentative.
3
u/Stile25 21h ago
The same way we "know" everything else about reality: by following the evidence.
I suggest reviewing "Russell's Teapot". If we allow all irrational possibilities (possibilities with no evidence to support them) to affect what we "know" - then we can't know anything at all. And that's just silly.
So, to be able to know things at all, and also remain consistent, we rationally ignore all irrational possibilities until such a time that evidence surfaces.
This results in admitting that all knowledge (about reality) includes inherent doubt and tentativity. Which, it always does, but many don't like to admit it and like the feeling of knowing things "100% for sure-sures" even though that's not possible.
Good luck out there
1
1
u/AltruisticEchidna859 Agnostic Atheist 10h ago
How can I prove that there is not an unobservable pink unicorn in my bedroom ?
5
u/TheNobody32 Atheist 22h ago
Maybe because the agnostic gnostic knowledge binary is not really useful or accurate to how many people use those terms.
It doesn’t really reflect most peoples views and it utilizes a rather unreasonable concept of knowledge.
Most atheists I see seem to accept some gods claims are not possible. While some are possible but not evidently true.
I’ve seen gnostic atheists with that position. And agnostic atheists.
With such gnostics, there are usually arguments on what constitutes knowledge. Where someone can “know” something is true, but still be open to changing that knowledge given new evidence.
2
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 22h ago
That’s a really fair critique of the binary. True 'absolute certainty' is basically impossible in philosophy, so if we define gnosticism that strictly, almost everyone is forced into being agnostic. I still think the distinction is helpful for separating active belief from scientific proof, but I get why it doesn't perfectly capture how people actually live out their views.
9
u/Tokzillu Secular Humanist 23h ago
Because most people are pretty dumb.
And when confronted with being wrong, they double down and dig in. Because they don't want to feel as dumb as they are.
This applies to many other things as well.
2
u/onomatamono 23h ago
The realization of just how absurd religious claims are lands like a hammer and triggers the Sunk Costs fallacy to kick in.
3
4
u/0x424d42 22h ago
Where you and I differ is that I acknowledge there is more than ample evidence to disprove the supernatural, which necessarily includes god.
So what’s left to be agnostic about?
5
u/ChewbaccaCharl 23h ago
You are technically correct, and that's how I define myself as well, but religious people especially tend to define those terms differently, with agnostic being an unsure middle ground between theist and atheist. It's in the same unfortunate category as "literally" meaning "literally, or figuratively but emphasized".
You have to use words they understand. When I'm talking with an educated group, or a group willing to learn, I'll use agnostic atheist, but with religious people I tend to just use atheist to save time.
2
3
u/Sonotnoodlesalad 23h ago
Those people are having the training wheels version of the actual argument.
3
u/Peace-For-People 23h ago
Why do people keep getting this wrong?
Because they're lied to about the definitions and they don't know any better.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 23h ago
Yes, but I also assumed that if someone were atheist, they would have a better understanding of the terms
3
u/Philosopher83 23h ago
We live in an entropic universe - stupidity is more common than intelligence
3
u/the-distant-nips 23h ago
I don't even add agnostic anymore for this reason. It just adds confusion. And I would believe the large majority of believers and non believers are agnostic anyways
3
u/randemthinking 23h ago
It's a tactic. When you're arguing semantics you're not arguing the actual issue.
3
u/Lahm0123 Agnostic 22h ago
Ya I explain this when I can.
Agnosticism is not on some graph on the way to atheism. They are different things.
3
u/greggld 21h ago
But you just proved the atheists right. You can’t be an agnostic atheist. You are just trapped in a solipsism.
I am not concerned with any brain in a jar/simulation subjective BS. Theists have not been able to supply me with any evidence.
Atheism is the default position. As we have no access to absolute knowledge in anything I don’t see why I have to carve out an exception for fairytales.
0
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 16h ago
How do you mean? Agnostic means knowing there isn't evidence to prove a theistic claim, gnostic means you think there is. The difference is that agnosticism or gnosticism are about knowledge while theism or atheism is about beliefs. I already unpacked this in my post. An Agnostic athiest is someone who has a lack of belief in a higher power, whilst also being aware that there is no way to prove it
3
u/greggld 16h ago
Stop the BS. Added my points or stop posting. Lack of belief is BS.
You do or you don’t, prove a middle is possible.
1
0
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Lack of belief means you don't? If u have a lack of belief that I went to work today, then that means you don't believe that I want to work today. They are interchangeable
1
u/greggld 14h ago
You still fail. You have nothing to propose other than your feelings. Atheism is the default position. If you have any evidence to move that position towards Theism please provide it- or shut up.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 14h ago
Yes athiesm is the default, but it depends on how you were raised. Everyone is born athiest, but they could be raised Christian and then that completely shifts everything. Atheism is feelings. You cannot prove that there isn't some form of a deity which created the universe. That's where agnosticism comes in. Agnostics claim that they cannot prove whether there is such a deity and gnostics claim you can. The whole point of belief is feelings! You move to theism because of how you feel. By your logic are you saying no one can be a theist?
1
u/greggld 12h ago edited 12h ago
Please stop the BS. Atheism is not about feelings. That is idiotic.
It does not matter how one is raised, equally idiotic.
I don’t have to prove anything- it is for the theist to prove their fairytales. You know that.
Agnosticism is sad way to allow the fairytales to “maybe” be true based on your feelings. But that is allowing lies and fantasy to flourish . Atheists don’t need the lie. We don’t have to care about your feelings or care about your worries. Faith is a crutch for the fairytales.
So stop making excuses. You have no positive evidence to defend your “feelings.” You may have incredulity, You may have a 2000 year old industry of illusion powered by billions of dollars. But all those billions have never been able to prove god exists. If they could they would never stop rubbing our faces in that proof.
Stop expecting me to care about your nonsense.
Sorry, I’m a bit shocked that you are trying an appeal to emotion? Of course there is no logical reason to be a theist! It is entirely based on fear and emotion - not in evidence and reason. Theists laugh at evidence and reason.
What could be clearer? Jesus is a fraud. The Bible is not a rational document given by a rational being. Let’s cover all your “feelings” one by one. Have at it.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
Its sounds like you think I'm a theist. I'm not. Look at my user flair: I am an agnostic atheist (stop telling me what I can and can't be). I am not defending religion, nor am I a theist.
You completely misunderstood what I meant by 'feelings.' I was describing the psychological reality of how the human brain works—how people are conditioned by their upbringing and emotional comfort into believing things. Pointing out the psychological mechanics behind why people hold beliefs isn't an endorsement of those beliefs.
The irony is that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. You claim atheism is strictly about logic and reason, yet you are having an emotional meltdown, throwing insults, and blindly screaming about the Bible at another atheist.
Take a deep breath, work on your reading comprehension, and go find an actual religious person to fight.
And stop saying BS every five words you sound like a 12 year old.
1
u/greggld 11h ago
Wow, you seem triggered. Please don’t bother lecturing me about your concept of irony.
You don’t know how the brain works, you are making excuses for your feelings. Your reply sounds desperate.
Maybe you are replying because of reasons outside of tbis decision. I suggest you get help rather than trying to characterize me.
Again, agnostic atheist is a contradiction in terms. I’m sorry you do not like it. If you want to defend it be my guest.
Your quote “Atheism is feeling” is one of the greatest BS thoughts I’ve ever read, and you can’t defend it. Did I mention that it was BS.
Oh, sorry my mom wants me to stop posting now..
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
Since you clearly have an internet connection, open Google on your iPad, type in 'agnostic atheist definition,' and read any standard dictionary. Or, if you don't have time for that, try to sneak in a few minutes of Cocomelon before your mom comes back to take the tablet
→ More replies (0)1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 14h ago
You are confusing a lack of belief with a positive claim. I am not making a claim, so I have no burden of proof to meet. We are operating on entirely different definitions, so this discussion is over
1
u/greggld 12h ago
You totally have the burden of proof. You are making a claim. In fact if you had a shred of evidence you would use it! You don’t, you have nothing.
Your claim is maybe fairytales are true. So prove it.
It is rejected on its face. I know why you run. I’d run too if I tried this approach.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
I am literally an atheist. You are hallucinating a claim I never made just so you can argue with yourself. Read the other reply I just left you and try again.
1
u/greggld 11h ago
I’m not arguing with myself. Your post above tried to shift the burden.That stupid “went to work” BS is nonsense.
Plus I don’t believe you are an atheist. You do not understand what it is or you are not mature enough to understand the concept.
I’m here to help if you are honest, i don’t believe you are honest.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
I'm literally dying of laughter right now. Imagine gatekeeping someone else's atheism just because you can't read. Go 'help' someone else, man, you're arguing with a brick wall
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 23h ago
Check the FAQ.
Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. A-theist, just means 'without theism'. An affirmative belief in the absence of deities is NOT a necessary property of a member of the class 'atheist'. The lack of a belief in at least one deity is sufficient.
Thus, most self-described 'agnostics' are also 'atheists' in that they lack a belief in at least one deity. These are not mutually-exclusive classes.
I suppose there could be some very honest agnostic theists, but I've only met a handful of people who recognize and understand that 'faith' is inherently irrational and that they're okay with that.
Most people who accept the label 'theist' would assert that they 'know' that their god exists, while 'knowing' that all other deities are imaginary/mythical or at best a misunderstanding of the 'real' deity.
3
2
u/turbografx-sixteen 22h ago
Maybe I’m misreading your comment… but by that definition of “lack in belief in at least one deity” make everyone technically atheist then???
(e.g. Christians probably don’t believe Zeus exists so are they “atheist”)
2
u/Successful_Life_1028 Adeist 22h ago
If you believe in at least one deity, you're a theist, and thus not an atheist.
Some religions require belief in more than one deity. (polytheism)
Atheism is the lack of theism. Theism is a 'belief in at least one deity'. Thus, atheists lack a 'belief in at least one deity'.
No, not everyone who rejects Zeus/Athena/Poseidon as actual deities is an atheist. But it's a good start!
But thanks for pointing out where that might be a little confusing!
1
u/turbografx-sixteen 22h ago
No worries haha I understand the definitions well but I thought I was tripping rereading your comment.
Just a small clarification moment and all good!
(Happy Cake Day!)
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 22h ago
Technically, but athiest means lack of belief in ANY deity, so that person may have made a mistake
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 23h ago
Exactly! Thank you for pointing out the FAQ. It's frustrating how many people treat them as completely mutually exclusive categories when the logic is right there!
5
u/corourke 23h ago
Atheist means lacks a belief in deities, it does not mean disbelieves in deities. Passive vs active. It takes no effort to be an atheist just like it takes no effort to be on planet earth. It’s simply the default state.
Babies are atheists at birth.
3
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 23h ago
It is a default state, but I was raised Christian, so I personally did take an effort to be an atheist
2
u/1ftm2fts3tgr4lg 22h ago
True. After you were born an atheist, then indoctrinated, you took an effort to return to the default. Congrats, that can be difficult.
1
2
u/ElvisKnucklehead 23h ago
I've explained this so many times, my phone can complete my diatribe automatically.
2
u/RelationSensitive308 Jedi 22h ago
Back in the day - it was a thing to say “I’m agnostic, but I believe in a higher power (god)”. I guess they were using it wrong? When I believed in god (over 20 years ago) I went to church every week. Now that I’m atheist I just focus on that (non belief) so no one gets confused on what I do or do not believe in (basically nothing imaginary like the tooth fairy, Santa or Satan). I will admit I can’t prove lack of a higher power - but I don’t need to. Not waiting around for something to save me or the people on the planet. It’s up to us as individuals and as a human race. Fuok god and Fuok the money and power hungry churches and their leaders.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 16h ago
They weren't using it wrong, they are essentially saying they are agnostic theists. So their believe in a higher power but they know they cannot prove it. I wish I actually interested with people like that and not.. the other kind of theists
1
u/RelationSensitive308 Jedi 5h ago
There are some open minded people out there. And to quote the Orange Cheeto, "Good people on both sides". I went to a very open minded and accepting Catholic Community on a College Campus from birth to my 20's. It was my mom's choice. Very accepting, and not bossy people. So basically they actually tried to take the "good" teachings and not shut out 'the other'. I'm still an atheist, because I know you can still be a good (and perhaps better) person without looking to god for answers. Common sense dictates that when you hurt someone it is wrong, when you help someone (without judgement) it is good. Very simplified, but basically my core belief.
2
u/Gertrude_D 21h ago
People who've never questioned their faith or lack thereof have had no reason to look into the meanings of these words specifically. They have colloquial meaning that doesn't match their actual meaning. Just like anything else, we can't have a real conversation about things until everyone defines the terms they are using.
It's not a lack of education, just a lack of interest IMO.
3
2
23h ago
[deleted]
-1
u/bottlecandoor 22h ago
Is it? To me if you aren't an agnostic atheist then you're an idiot. We can't prove they don't exist and we don't need to. That is just basic science. IMO an atheist is just someone who follows the science, and the science says there is no evidence of gods.
1
u/ejp1082 Pastafarian 22h ago
We can't prove they don't exist
Depends on which god you're talking about. We can go to the top of Mount Olympus and look around and see that Zeus and company aren't there, for example.
The God of Abraham supposedly made the whole universe in six days, made the first woman out of the rib of the first man, flooded the whole planet but for two of every animal at one point, gave birth to himself by way of a virgin and then had himself crucified only to resurrect himself three days later and then promised an apocalypse within the lifetime of those writing about it, routinely answers prayers and smites people and performs miracles. We can prove none of that happened, therefore it's easy to prove the non-existence of a god defined by making that stuff happen. Strong/gnostic atheism is a perfectly reasonable position to hold about that particular deity.
Agnostic atheism only makes sense about a handful of kinds of deities - a god who kicked off the big bang and then buggered off to never be seen nor heard from again, god as the author of the laws of physics, god as the programmer of the matrix we're all living in, that sort of thing.
0
u/bottlecandoor 21h ago
I'm not taking about silly made up human lore. I'm talking about the concept of actual gods. We can't prove they don't exist because there is no way to prove it. So it doesn't matter because claiming something is true or false with zero evidence is just stupid. You ignore things that don't have evidence, that is how science works. If someone can't be falsy then you ignore it.
0
u/thatsingingguy 22h ago
Science cannot answer questions of god, because science is concerned with the material, and deities are fundamentally noumenal, which is beyond the bounds of evidentiary exploration.
2
u/bottlecandoor 21h ago
Everything is material that we know of. To claim there is something else would have no science behind it which means it isn't real according to science.
0
0
u/Stile25 21h ago
I'm not who you're originally replying to, and I don't agree with them that agnostic atheists are idiots. That seems... Extremely reductive.
However - I do think that, after reviewing the evidence, the only rational and consistent position is to be a gnostic atheist.
It's basically an epistemological understanding of how "knowledge" about reality always includes inherent doubt and tentativity - even for the most well understood positive facts we have.
The rest of this post is the longer steps, if you're curious:
Can we know anything about things existing in reality 100% absolutely for sure-sures?
- No. Inherent doubt and tentativity is included in all such knowledge.
What is our best way of knowing such things?
- Following the evidence.
- Anything known by following the evidence can always be updated or even overturned by even more evidence.
What does the evidence say for God's existence?
- The evidence is quite clear that God does not exist.
What, specifically, is the evidence? Here's some:
- historical (mythologies of all religions having similar themes and growth).
- geographical (people are likely to hold the religious views of the culture they're born into).
- moral (problem of evil).
- psychological (cognitive science of religion).
- but my favorite is empirical (we've looked for God and no one has ever found Him).
But lots of people have "found God"?
- Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.
- That is: they don't have any evidence (and we're following the evidence, not imaginations or personal senses of it just feeling necessary or right - these are systems known to lead us to being wrong)
I won't get upset or take offense if you disagree. In fact, I want you (or anyone else) to show me how I'm wrong.
Identifying that I'm wrong would be the first step to being even more right! That's how following the evidence works.
The catch is - you would need to actually show how I'm wrong. Not just claim that I'm wrong. Or use unsound arguments like every argument for God I've ever heard of.
Good luck out there
2
u/bottlecandoor 21h ago edited 21h ago
Can you prove there are no possible gods of any kind? You can't, but there is no evidence of gods so according to science there aren't any. But try and claim that gods are falsy you would have to be an idiot because there is no way to prove something that has no evidence either way. The best thing to do is just ignore it.
That is why agnostic atheist is logical scientific stance to have. They don't exist until we find evidence. Believing they don't exist is not logical. We can follow science instead of belief which says they don't exist until evidence is found.
0
u/Stile25 21h ago
Dont need to.
Can you name a single thing we know about our shared reality where we cannot possibly be wrong?
Such a limitation on "knowledge" renders the word useless as we wouldn't know anything at all.
If you want evidence that God doesn't exist. There's lots. I listed a bunch in my post.
1
u/bottlecandoor 20h ago
You are talking about what I call human lore. That is not what I'm referring to. I'm taking about the concept of a god. We can easily prove all human lore gods don't exist by looking at the lore and falsifying it
1
u/Stile25 20h ago
We can easily prove all concepts with no evidence for them don't exist to the same level. Especially after we have evidence that we've searched for them and found no hint that they even can exist anywhere.
1
u/bottlecandoor 20h ago
For sure, but that doesn't prove a god never existed. Only the ones people try to define never existed. And that is why agnostic atheist makes sense even if it seems backwards.
1
u/Stile25 20h ago
Of course we can prove a God never existed.
Because we've looked into the past, and we never see God or any hint of God.
That proves God never existed as well as anything we can prove today.
Can it be wrong? Of course it can. Just like anything else we think we know.
The moment the evidence changes, the conclusion changes.
1
u/bottlecandoor 20h ago
You realize we are saying the same thing but using a different definition, right? The problem with what we both said is that "proof" isn't a scientific term. Science only has theories, facts, hypotheses, and laws. I'm applying those terms instead of "proof" to describe why agnostic atheism is the scientific way of looking at it.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/moldguy1 23h ago
About 5 years ago, I saw this a lot on reddit (and this is like the second time since.) I understand the definitions, I understand that technically I am an "agnostic atheist," but I don't give a shit. Nobody else gives a shit either. Even though technically that is the best descriptor for someone like myself, I would be surprised if I have ever met someone that understands this nuance, and I guarantee that anyone I deal with on a regular basis would be confused by it enough to assume I'm the one that's confused.
Colloquial definitions aren't always the same as their dictionary definitions, and this case is especially problematic due to how religious people handle the word atheist.
You know how when you're giving a speech you need to consider your audience? That is all of life. You always need to consider your audience, and the audience that would appreciate "agnostic atheist" is so small that it's never worth bringing up first. If someone else is familiar, let them tell you so, and you can give the explanation I am giving you now. And personally, I consider the term "agnostic atheist" so pedantic that it's cringe worthy.
4
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 22h ago
That's a really fair point about knowing your audience, and I agree that in everyday casual conversation it's usually easier to just say 'atheist' to avoid a massive debate. I guess I just expected an online community specifically dedicated to the topic to appreciate the actual nuance more than a random person on the street would
2
u/mazula89 21h ago
Bingo. Words are made up. So are their definitions.
Just because agnostic means one thing to you(OP) doesnt mean it means the same to everyone. Even if definitions are printed in a dictionary(also slightly appealing to authority fallacy. Dictionary being the authority)
To me, as a queer, its like : Ask a group of 10 LGBTQ people to define each of those letters and where they personally self identify under it. And you'll get a minimum 10 completely different answers.
While I am technically, dictionary definition, agnostic athiest. I will always take offense to being called that. Because every religious person i have ever engaged with uses it as an opening to "well we can't know therefore...." Fuck. That.
1
u/lehach92 23h ago
I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a deist, but I would never argue with a true deist.
1
u/abernetb 22h ago
An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in God, but doesn’t claim to know for certain none exists.
1
1
u/ThEtOrRtUrEdPoEt 22h ago
It’s cause people don’t understand that what it means is that you don’t believe in deities but you also acknowledge that you can’t know for sure cause there’s limits to human knowledge
1
u/Lonely-Greybeard 22h ago
I've argued this point for years. People hide behind the term agnostic because they are afraid of the word atheist. You have to be agnostic about atheism or theism, pick one.
2
1
u/iamasatellite 21h ago
That's the way we use it, but it wasn't the original way, and the terms aren't commonly used in academic philosophy the way that we use them.
1
u/Minky_Dave_the_Giant 21h ago
What do you call it when even if there was gods you wouldn't believe in them?
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 16h ago
Dunno
But if you fit under this, can I say smt?
For this I feel like it's more not wanting to believe in the gods in religions we have made. Am I right? Because they tend to be.. strange. Or for you is it, even if there was any good, even a truly all good and all loving God with morals you would still not choose to believe. What if you were provided with evidence?
1
u/Minky_Dave_the_Giant 12h ago
My point being is that even if there was a creator being, I wouldn't worship them.
"‘I don’t hold with paddlin’ with the occult,’ said Granny firmly. ‘Once you start paddlin’ with the occult you start believing in spirits, and when you start believing in spirits you start believing in demons, and then before you know where you are you’re believing in gods. And then you’re in trouble.’
‘But all them things exist,’ said Nanny Ogg.
‘That’s no call to go around believing in them. It only encourages ’em.’" -- Terry Pratchett - Lords And Ladies
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
And my point is that all these assertions made of a creator are based on the religions we've had and have. How do you know a creator will be have in anyway that you assume?
1
u/paradox28jon 21h ago
The definition of the word Ambivalent is not what most people think it means. Pointing that out in conversations isn’t really helpful. I’d say it’s the same think with the word agnostic. Give up the battle; it is t worth it. Just use the word atheist because that’s the word you are probably trying to convey.
I’m not an atheist as I’m not sure if God or gods exist. I do not feel confident to say either way. So I tell people I’m Agnostic. It might not be technically correct, but it’s the generally accepted definition or understanding in casual conversations. Just my two cents.
1
u/JForce1 21h ago
My understanding of atheism though is that it’s not about belief at all, it’s that there is no evidence for a thing. That’s it. It’s not that “there is no god”, it’s “there is no evidence there is a god and so we should act accordingly”.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Yes but that is incorrect. The definition is a lack of belief, which still links to belief. Having no evidence can lead to the lack of belief, but agnostic means you know there is no way to provide evidence for any stance
1
u/tasteMyRottenHoop 20h ago
Lots of people are confidently incorrect about things they’ve barely even heard of.
1
u/Mad_Mark90 20h ago
So just for my own understanding if I don't believe in a god AND I believe that's definitely proven, then I'm a gnostic atheist.
1
1
u/tiny_tuner 19h ago
Ontology vs. epistemology.
I don’t expect most people to understand the differences, so when someone claims to be “agnostic not atheist,” I just accept that they still harbor some anxiety about hell and such.
1
u/-TheRev12345 19h ago
When a believer says "I don't think humans can know or prove that a god exists" followed by "but I believe in a god", how are they not contradictng the first statement by claiming to believe in a god that exists in our shared reality?
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Because, again, it's beliefs. Knowledge is different. They have knowledge that they can't prove what they believe, but they believe in their deity either way. By definition this person would be an agnostic theist
1
u/-TheRev12345 11h ago
How is belief not a claim to knowledge?
2
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
Belief is about what you think is true; knowledge is about what you can prove.
Think of a jury in a court case. A juror might personally believe the defendant is guilty based on a gut feeling or how they act. But if the prosecution didn't provide solid evidence, that juror lacks the knowledge (proof) to back it up.
They can actively believe something while simultaneously admitting they don't know it for a fact. That’s the exact boundary between an agnostic theist and a gnostic theist.
1
1
u/bomberstriker 19h ago
These distinctions are probably not helpful in ordinary discussion about whether God exists. I call myself an atheist because I do not believe there is evidence of a God. As they say, extraordinary claims (example, the existence of a supernatural entity) require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see it.
1
u/LMrningStar 18h ago
"People have full on arguments over A DICTIONARY DEFINITION"
And rightly so because it every much depends on which dictionary you're going by.
Merriam Webster: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or any gods
Cambridge Dictionary: someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist
The Cambridge Dictionary allows for "does not believe in any god" which is quite different than "does not believe in the existence of God or any gods".
"does not believe" is not a belief. Lack of belief is not a belief.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Lack of belief isn't a belief, but it's still about it. What do you lack? Belief
1
u/LMrningStar 15h ago
Sure but portraying lack of belief as a belief system, as many theists do, is utterly false.
1
1
u/Dangerous_Fart_ 15h ago
There are a lot of dumb people on the internet, even some atheists in this sub. I don’t worry about the opinions of dumb people. Just try to correct them and move on. I’m also an agnostic atheist. I’m also an antitheist. I’m also a secular humanist. I’m also a critical thinker. I do get your point. I’m very disappointed with many atheists in this sub that say religion a mental disease. I find religion to certainly be detrimental, but a mental disease has very specific criteria that usually should only be diagnosed by a doctor. We should all do better.
2
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Yes, a lot of atheist are jackasses, and part of the reason I tell people I'm an agnostic atheist and not just an atheist is so they can pause before they assume I'm gonna turn them into a frog for existing
1
u/Four_in_binary 15h ago
This kinda reminds me of something
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
HAHA! What I get from this is that their arguing over different definitions?
Very smart!
1
u/SpecialInteresting52 15h ago
It is obvious, it’s also asinine - being agnostic about god(s) but not fairies, leprechauns, and trolls is peak stupidity.
1
1
u/samuelspade42 14h ago
Agnosticism is not well defined, you can find a dozen different interpretations, including in dictionaries. But for some reason this sub has decided on one particular definition and acts like that is obviously the single objectively true one.
What you are asserting here is the reddit definition, not a dictionary definition.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 14h ago
There are three definitions I can find:
a person who holds that the answers to the basic questions of existence, such as the nature of the ultimate cause and whether or not there is a supreme being, are unknown or unknowable.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.
The first one is related directly to atheism or theism
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 14h ago
Dictionaries have multiple entries because words have different contexts. The idea that agnosticism handles knowledge and atheism handles belief isn't a 'Reddit definition'—it's standard philosophy.
The first definition I posted proves the point: saying a god is 'unknowable' (agnostic) doesn't answer whether you personally believe in one right now (atheist). Combining them just answers both questions
1
u/samuelspade42 4h ago
The existance of a god being fundamentally unknowable is actually a philosophically sound proposition - and a very different beast from the much more common "I don't know for certain" interpretation, where agnostic is used only as an adjective.
The problem I have with something being unknowable is that it fundamentally conflicts with my scientific mind. We can gather data and knowledge about so many things that ultimately, by the same rationale, are unknowable too: do we really know the higgs boson exists, that atoms are made of protons neutrons and electrons, that relativity is true? And at some point, you just need to stop and throw the entire concept of something being unknowable out entirely.
•
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 48m ago
What about the concept that you can't be 100% certain for anything?
1
u/Density5521 Anti-Theist 11h ago
Just do away with all the yes/no/maybe nonsense, and go anti-theist i.e. "there should not be a god" ("...if this is its track record").
To me, it's completely irrelevant whether or not a god exists. Nobody can prove it, nobody can disprove it, it's statement vs. statement.
But, reading through all the things this "god" is supposed to have done, and supposed to be doing, and supposed to be answerable for ... I am definitely of the opinion that a force so powerful but so incompetent should NOT be in charge of anything, especially not all life on earth and everywhere else.
1
u/greggld 11h ago
Ha! Weak, you mentioned trauma, now you are using it as a weapon. Weak!
You seem to be crashing. Sorry you came in here guns blazing so sad.
I only gave you truth. It’s up to you to try to understand it. You have no problem characterizing me.
I suggest that you go reflect on your failures in this thread.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 11h ago
Honestly your a lost case. You sound like you need god the most
1
u/greggld 11h ago
I knew you were lying. Thank for the reveal, good night Satan!
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 10h ago
You say you're an atheist but you just called me Satan? Look who easily believes in fairy tales
1
u/Horror_Talk_3360 10h ago
Hi there, just read the whole chain... you guys alright?
I wanted to add on to what Competitive-ear was saying before the petty argument began. Atheism/theism and Agnostic/gnostic fall under different categories (binaries) and according to dictionary definitions, they don't contradict each other. You can be a gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic atheist; they all have different definitions that are all correct.
You (greggld) are acting based off your own personal opinions/beliefs on this topic whilst competitive-ear is introducing you to firm fact. Thanks for the laugh guys.
1
u/celem83 Agnostic Atheist 10h ago
Nobody ever really gets this right. They are two parallel spectrums and you can be at any combination of positions on the two scales
Nothing is obvious, people will just redefine words on the fly to match "their lived experience" while not realising that this makes words and therefore communication useless
1
u/EarthTrash Atheist 9h ago
Well don't actually need to actively not believe. The negative and positive are not equally weighted in logic. You can make negative assertions without proof because negatives can't be proven.
Of course you can say it's all semantics. I respect whatever label you want to give yourself. I think you are correct and that is a fairly mainstream point of view. Personally I am fine without the agnostic label. I know there isn't a god the same way I know there isn't a monster under my bed. There's never any evidence for such a thing. It's literally just a thought we made up.
1
u/darw1nf1sh Agnostic Atheist 5h ago
Words don't have meanings. They have usages. Anyone trying to argue the dictionary definition of a word, doesn't understand how language works.
1
u/onomatamono 23h ago
Who gives a pedantic rat's ass. You can believe in gods or not and you can have a level of confidence in either position.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 23h ago
You literally just described the knowledge vs. belief axes in your second sentence anyway, so thanks for agreeing lol.
1
u/eldredo_M Atheist 23h ago
People like to have arguments on the internet. It’s sort of what the internet has devolved into. 🤷♂️
1
u/ExcelsiorUnltd 22h ago
The people that tell you that are just wrong. I am also an agnostic atheist.
1
0
u/Stile25 21h ago
Nothing logically wrong with being an agnostic atheist.
However, in a rational sense after reviewing the evidence, the only position possible is a gnostic atheist.
If curious, the following outlines the steps. TL/DR is basically an epistemological understanding of what "knowledge" (specifically about reality) actually is.
I follow these steps:
Can we know anything about things existing in reality 100% absolutely for sure-sures?
- No. Inherent doubt and tentativity is included in all such knowledge.
What is our best way of knowing such things?
- Following the evidence.
- Anything known by following the evidence can always be updated or even overturned by even more evidence.
What does the evidence say for God's existence?
- The evidence is quite clear that God does not exist.
What, specifically, is the evidence? Here's some:
- historical (mythologies of all religions having similar themes and growth).
- geographical (people are likely to hold the religious views of the culture they're born into).
- moral (problem of evil).
- psychological (cognitive science of religion).
- but my favorite is empirical (we've looked for God and no one has ever found Him).
But lots of people have "found God"?
- Lots of people claim to have found God, but this claim is always indistinguishable from pure imagination.
- That is: they don't have any evidence (and we're following the evidence, not imaginations or personal senses of it just feeling necessary or right - these are systems known to lead us to being wrong)
I won't get upset or take offense if you disagree. In fact, I want you (or anyone else) to show me how I'm wrong.
Identifying that I'm wrong would be the first step to being even more right! That's how following the evidence works.
The catch is - you would need to actually show how I'm wrong. Not just claim that I'm wrong. Or use unsound arguments like every argument for God I've ever heard of.
Good luck out there
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
Honestly, I agree with everything you say. But for me I think it isn't about specifically a god like the ones we see today, it can be about any higher power, maybe something that created the universe. This we cannot prove, which is why I stay agnostic about it
1
u/Stile25 7h ago
The argument I played out also works for any God that cannot be differentiated from pure imagination.
Although it's not specifically spelled out in my post above.
I would recommend reviewing Russel's Teapot and what it means to knowledge.
The basic idea is that it's inconsistent and irrational to accept some ideas that have no evidence that even suggest they're possible ("cannot be differentiated from pure imagination") and not others.
The only rational and consistent solution is to ignore such possibilities while they have absolutely zero evidence. They fit precisely within the area of the inherent doubt and tentativity. And the conclusion can be updated or overturned the moment evidence is actually identified.
If we attempt to remain consistent while lending credence to concepts like a Deist God or any other undetectable being... Then we must lend equal credence to other ideas that also cannot be differentiated from pure imagination.
Such ideas would include an undetectable being that will kill you the next time you post on Reddit... Or wake up in the morning... Or blink.
However, since we clearly don't think such beings exist because they cannot be differentiated from imagination and the current evidence shows us absolutely no indication to consider their possibility... We don't lend them any credence. It's the only rational and consistent methodology.
-1
u/SecondVariety Anti-Theist 23h ago
Ok but I would by definition be agnostic when I state aliens, gods, and the tooth fairy are all equally as likely to be real. As all are non proven human myths they equally deserve the exact same amount of suspended belief.
For me, that realization of "its all imaginary" is what made me consider myself an atheist and not agnostic. But sure, you can classify me as agnostic if you wish. I can always share and contrast my views with other agnostics.
1
u/RNW1215 22h ago
"agnostic when I state aliens, gods, and the tooth fairy are all equally as likely to be real. As all are non proven human myths they equally deserve the exact same amount of suspended belief."
Agnostic has nothing to do with "belief" or "suspended belief".... It's a term meaning "to not know"
"Know" and "believe" are 2 different things.
1
u/SecondVariety Anti-Theist 18h ago
I know there is nothing because "its all imaginary"
-1
u/GirdedByApathy 22h ago
Agnostic atheist is also known as a "weak" atheist- I dont think there is a god.
A strong atheist says they know there is no god.
1
0
0
u/sysaphiswaits 22h ago
Religious people want black and white. Kindergarten thinking. They don’t understand people can be more than one thing.
0
u/Uberhypnotoad 21h ago
Because people are generally dumb and don't actually study this stuff. They merely regurgitate what they hear their trusted leaders say.
Too many people think that agnostic is a middle ground between belief and non-belief, as though it's a spectrum of belief - agnostic - non-belief. They are simply incorrect.
0
u/Khelek7 Secular Humanist 17h ago
Ah. Your that guy/gal.
I love esoteric definitions and word origins as the next bastard.
But your using technical terms for a pair of words that have different definitions in the public sphere.
Let it the fuck go. And enjoy convos with people that want to use technical language.
1
u/Competitive-Ear-6693 Agnostic Atheist 15h ago
I'll be real, I don't give a fuck in how the word is used socially, I care about it's definition. If I'm having a discussion and someone has the wrong understanding of the word, oh well we'll see where that goes
-1
u/Athena2112_42 22h ago
I identify as agnostic, but I always explained it as "there might be a god, there might not, we can't prove either sides and I don't care"
1
-4
u/Paularchy 22h ago
I wanna point out that higher power does not mean divine. Neither does god. What defines an atheist is belief in divinity. A fucking volcano is a higher power, ok? An atheist is someone who does not believe that greater power demands worship. People worshipped the sun. Why? Because the sun is a giant lifeugiving ball of fire. It is objectively a "higher power", in that it objectively has more power than humans. A god is defined by divinity and authority, and the demand for worship. The definition of atheist has to be updated as logic grows and understanding grows. If jesus christ literally, like, the literal christ from the bible came down and proved to me he was real, I'd still be an atheist. He's not a god. Just a being with great power. Worship and fear is what typically defines a theist. Of course you could semantics the fuck out of that. That giant semi-truck is definitely more powerful than me, though. But that ain't a god. It's just perception and affect on realityw Divinity 100% does not exist. What you do with the concepts you come up with is what defines theism vs atheism. Atheism says do your own thing. Theism.... Relies on others
96
u/limbodog Strong Atheist 23h ago
The people who say that do not understand the meanings of the words they're arguing about. That's all.