I was taught it's impossible to be an atheist because you have to BELIEVE there is not a God -- therefore you are believing in something.
Whoever taught you that was incorrect. I recall Wierwille made that statement in "da class". It probably counts as one of the "Actual errors". Maybe you learned it somewhere else, but it still reflects a misunderstanding of what an atheist is. An atheist is not someone who is without belief, but someone who is without God.
An agnostic just says - "I don't know, I don't care."
Maybe some agnostics "don't care", but that's hardly the definition.
Edited by Oakspear
Having spent a great deal of my time (years in fact) debating atheists on this and other various subjects I'm not going to go down that road again. However I'll make it real simple.
Agnostic = Doesn't believe in god or gods.
Atheist = Doesn't believe in god or gods.
One can make a "truth statement" and the other may not but the bottom line is neither of them believe in a god or gods. The former would (and is) considered "weak atheism" and the latter would (and is) considered "strong atheism."
While the definitions between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' and 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' might be like splitting of hairs to some people (particularly to those who think of all those groups of people as 'rank unbelievers', and deserve to burn, burn, burn <_< ), the distinctions are indeed very real nonetheless.
For one thing, there is a difference between one who says, "I can't prove one way or another whether there is a god or not, but until you prove it to me, I just don't accept that he exists.", and one who says "I know, and can prove that there is no god/spiritual being(s)". The first is a refusal to believe until proven otherwise, while the second is a positive claim that there is, indeed, no god. Technically, the first example is known as 'weak atheism', and the 2nd is known as 'strong atheism'. (For the record, genereally speaking, I consider myself a weak atheist.)
As you can probably tell, the 2nd definition is a LOT harder to argue/prove than the first.
And no, agnostics don't automatically disbelieve in a deity (as far as they are concerned). They basically do not know, or think that they can know. Ie., they haven't made a believing decision one way or another. Some atheists view this as being wishy-washy or undecisive. Me, I view it as either endeavoring to figure it out, or dealing with it as tho' it isn't really worth their time or effort.
While the definitions between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' and 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' might be like splitting of hairs to some people (particularly to those who think of all those groups of people as 'rank unbelievers', and deserve to burn, burn, burn <_< ), the distinctions are indeed very real nonetheless.
For one thing, there is a difference between one who says, The first is a refusal to believe until proven otherwise, while the second is a positive claim that there is, indeed, no god. Technically, the first example is known as 'weak atheism', and the 2nd is known as 'strong atheism'. (For the record, genereally speaking, I consider myself a weak atheist.)
As you can probably tell, the 2nd definition is a LOT harder to argue/prove than the first.
And no, agnostics don't automatically disbelieve in a deity (as far as they are concerned). They basically do not know, or think that they can know. Ie., they haven't made a believing decision one way or another. Some atheists view this as being wishy-washy or undecisive. Me, I view it as either endeavoring to figure it out, or dealing with it as tho' it isn't really worth their time or effort.
Oh gee! I just love it. I really shouldn't but . . . .
"I can't prove one way or another whether there is a god or not, but until you prove it to me, I just don't accept that he exists.", and one who says "I know, and can prove that there is no god/spiritual being(s)".
If you look at this two statements side by side what is the common denominator?
:) Both would be called theists. They both believe some sort of god or gods exists. They only differ on what type of gods exists. Atheists and agnostics don't believe in the existence of gods or gods. While one may emphatically state (make a "Truth statement") the other one won't go that far (sorta wimpish according to some atheists). Both however, believe the burden of proof rests on those who claim there is/are gods.
this really isn't that difficult. a dictionary will answer it, if you really want an answer, not an argument:
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
you know, larry, i have to wonder. are you as big a jerk as you seem, or am i just being influenced by your stupid avatar?
you know, larry, i have to wonder. are you as big a jerk as you seem, or am i just being influenced by your stupid avatar?
I have to wonder why you are such a jerk who feels it's their duty to tell someone else they are a jerk. I have to wonder that -- but I won't spend more than a few seconds of my time giving it much thought. You just ain't worth the waste of time. :)
I have to wonder why you are such a jerk who feels it's their duty to tell someone else they are a jerk. I have to wonder that -- but I won't spend more than a few seconds of my time giving it much thought. You just ain't worth the waste of time. :)
wouldn't a simple "yes" or "no" wasted less of your time?
wouldn't a simple "yes" or "no" wasted less of your time?
but then i wouldn't really know. and now i do.
How the hell would I know if my avatar is influencing you being a dumb-a$$? If you can't figure it out go see (and pay) a psychologist to help you with your problem.
Both however, believe the burden of proof rests on those who claim there is/are gods.
That is the only common sense statement you made in this thread. The rest is just theistic-justified, ad hominum bulls**t, done in such a desperate attempt to defend their deity by slamming the unbeliever, ... for no better reason than that he disbelieves.
As a result, it illustrates, Yet Again, your total *lack* of said proof of your god.
Thanks for illustrating to me Yet Again why I left your mentality behind.
Well, I claim the title of "agnostic" (I actually would prefer "non-theist" but, whatever) as I simply see atheism as connoting a certainty that's impossible to have.
How could one KNOW that there is no God? It's pretty hard to prove a negative and - given a being that has the power to create the heavens and the earth - how hard would it be for Him to keep Himself annonymous if that was His desire?
Now the religions of the world, OTOH, I think pretty much disprove themselves, just by reading their doctrines. They generally tend toward the absurd, magical, incongruous, and just plain wrong, but usually with a big reward for those that stay faithful. So I don't have any problem in disavowing any acceptance of those.
But is there an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (and largely capricious and uncaring) God floating around in space somewhere? Well, I dunno (and... I don't much care)...
Both however, believe the burden of proof rests on those who claim there is/are gods.
Larry,
That is the only common sense statement you made in this thread. The rest is just theistic-justified, ad hominum bulls**t, done in such a desperate attempt to defend their deity by slamming the unbeliever, ... for no better reason than that he disbelieves.
As rants go, that's not a bad one. I'm not sure what it has to do with me 'cause I'm just relaying what I've learned from atheists (on the subject). Therefore, I suppose, if you have a bltch with anyone you should take it up with them.
As for me, I really don't care what you believe or don't believe.
As a result, it illustrates, Yet Again, your total *lack* of said proof of your god.
If I was interested in and/or attempting to prove anything to you, you might have a point. I'm not sure what it might be but, I'm sure there's one in there somewhere.
Thanks for illustrating to me Yet Again why I left your mentality behind.
How could one KNOW that there is no God? It's pretty hard to prove a negative and - given a being that has the power to create the heavens and the earth - how hard would it be for Him to keep Himself annonymous if that was His desire?
Interesting. You're one of the few atheists/agnostics I've seen capitalizing the word god and the masculine pronoun. Must be a hangover from previous days -- right? Give it a few more years and you'll get over it. ;)
Perhaps he was trying to be polite. ... But you're right, as I imagine he'll get over it, and I'd be willing to bet that it won't even be as long as a few more years.
How the hell would I know if my avatar is influencing you being a dumb-a$$? If you can't figure it out go see (and pay) a psychologist to help you with your problem.
boy, oh, boy, larry, you got me good with that one! add a couple of "nyah, nyah, nyah"s and i'd probably take my ball and go home. ::sniff::
The following is another viewpoint on this subject. It's been so long (October 14, 2002) since I last read it that I forget who wrote it. I believe it was written by someone from a board I once participated on. If you want to skip through the whole article that's fine but I think his conclusion at the end is worth noting.
What is atheism?
(also some thoughts on theism and agnosticism)
________________________________________
The thoughts expressed below are mine. I haven't directly used any material as a source in writing this definitional essay although I should give credit to George Smith and the paper "Freethought Today" for the insights they provided when I read them over a year before writing this. I'm sure there are other sources that I have read in the past which have influenced the thoughts below, but they don't come to mind at the moment.
________________________________________
Some of the most poorly understood words are: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to provide a definitional framework for the three words. I'm confident that many people who read this will still choose to define the words differently than I. The purpose of the definitions is not to establish some sort of absolute truth but to provide a working definition that at least I can point to and say, "this is what I think the definition is, and this is how I use these words". If you find the definitions useful, feel free to 'label' yourself using them and direct anyone to this site who doesn't know why you call yourself by one (or more) of these terms.
Perhaps the biggest reason the above words are misunderstood is that theists tend to define atheism, atheists tend to define theism, and people who call themselves agnostics don't want to belong to either of the definitions the other two parties have given to each other.
First I will begin with atheism, which will also be the main focus throughout since I think it is the most misunderstood and poorly defined of the three. At the above linked definition of "atheism" someone called R. Hall says, "Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness". This is just one example of a theist incorrectly defining atheism. Atheism is not a system (ferocious or otherwise), it says nothing about what is above us, it says nothing about tenderness, and atheists can be just as excited and awed about life as theists. The atheists I know and have read are, on average, more excited and awed by the wonders of life than theists. This statement is not intended to knock theists, but merely to point out that the above definition is a false generalization that has nothing to do with the 'real' definition of atheism.
There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim (and if you don't believe me I can send you countless emails I have received from theists or you can read their definitions on the web for yourself) that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable", etc.
Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.
To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.
Now let's move on to theism briefly. Theism is simply the opposite of atheism. A good definition of theism is "a positive assertion that god does exist". Whatever this god may be to the theist is irrelevant to the definition of theism as a word on its own. Based on these two definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you lack such a positive assertion. There is no middle ground--which brings us to our third word of agnosticism.
When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable". The word agnostic isn't a very old word. Despite this fact, T.H. Huxley, who created the term, used it to mean our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else. The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist. One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion. Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion.
My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.
The reason I claim that no one can know god is this. Many who believe in god don't claim any first hand knowledge. They will tell you that their belief comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or their wanting to believe. Those people are fairly easy to rule out as non-agnostics as they really don't assert knowledge in the first place. They can readily be dubbed agnostics because they are without knowledge of their belief. Their belief is simply a belief and nothing more. The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or external evidence. Some claim to converse with, see, or otherwise personally experience god. The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same 'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists, or others who want to see proof).
Knowledge in any item isn't something based solely on personal experience. If I have a personal experience that gives me knowledge, I should be able to share that knowledge in a verifiable manner with others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. For instance, if I figure out that the earth is round based on my personal experience of flying in the space shuttle and seeing first hand that it is round, I can share that knowledge with others either by having them also go in the space shuttle and view earth for themselves, or I can take photos or provide some other sort of evidence of my experience to others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. Their knowledge of the earth's shape is then based on reality rather than their own desires to believe or some other "non-proof". Real knowledge should be objective and capable of being tested, demonstrated, and/or experimentally verified. Given these factors, even those that claim 'knowledge' of god are agnostics as their 'knowledge' is really a misuse of the word. What they have isn't knowledge. What they have is a belief in their own experience and nothing more. If they had 'knowledge', they would be able to share it with the doubter, the evidence seeker, and those who don't already believe.
To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.
Larry, (referring to your post on the October 2002 article)
Kudos!! An article that provides a clear, informative, and balanced definition/information as regards the atheist/theist topic. ... And very much enjoyed by yours truly. :)
Larry, (referring to your post on the October 2002 article)
Kudos!! An article that provides a clear, informative, and balanced definition/information as regards the atheist/theist topic. ... And very much enjoyed by yours truly. :)
Recommended Posts
Outfield
I was taught it's impossible to be an atheist because you have to BELIEVE there is not a God -- therefore you are believing in something.
An agnostic just says - "I don't know, I don't care."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Having spent a great deal of my time (years in fact) debating atheists on this and other various subjects I'm not going to go down that road again. However I'll make it real simple.
Agnostic = Doesn't believe in god or gods.
Atheist = Doesn't believe in god or gods.
One can make a "truth statement" and the other may not but the bottom line is neither of them believe in a god or gods. The former would (and is) considered "weak atheism" and the latter would (and is) considered "strong atheism."
Have fun!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
While the definitions between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' and 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' might be like splitting of hairs to some people (particularly to those who think of all those groups of people as 'rank unbelievers', and deserve to burn, burn, burn <_< ), the distinctions are indeed very real nonetheless.
For one thing, there is a difference between one who says, "I can't prove one way or another whether there is a god or not, but until you prove it to me, I just don't accept that he exists.", and one who says "I know, and can prove that there is no god/spiritual being(s)". The first is a refusal to believe until proven otherwise, while the second is a positive claim that there is, indeed, no god. Technically, the first example is known as 'weak atheism', and the 2nd is known as 'strong atheism'. (For the record, genereally speaking, I consider myself a weak atheist.)
As you can probably tell, the 2nd definition is a LOT harder to argue/prove than the first.
And no, agnostics don't automatically disbelieve in a deity (as far as they are concerned). They basically do not know, or think that they can know. Ie., they haven't made a believing decision one way or another. Some atheists view this as being wishy-washy or undecisive. Me, I view it as either endeavoring to figure it out, or dealing with it as tho' it isn't really worth their time or effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If you look at this two statements side by side what is the common denominator?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Christian = believes in a god or gods
Pagan = believes in a god or gods
Voila! There's no "real" difference!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) Both would be called theists. They both believe some sort of god or gods exists. They only differ on what type of gods exists. Atheists and agnostics don't believe in the existence of gods or gods. While one may emphatically state (make a "Truth statement") the other one won't go that far (sorta wimpish according to some atheists). Both however, believe the burden of proof rests on those who claim there is/are gods.
Gosh darn it! Here I go again. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
this really isn't that difficult. a dictionary will answer it, if you really want an answer, not an argument:
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.
you know, larry, i have to wonder. are you as big a jerk as you seem, or am i just being influenced by your stupid avatar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I have to wonder why you are such a jerk who feels it's their duty to tell someone else they are a jerk. I have to wonder that -- but I won't spend more than a few seconds of my time giving it much thought. You just ain't worth the waste of time. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
wouldn't a simple "yes" or "no" wasted less of your time?
but then i wouldn't really know. and now i do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
How the hell would I know if my avatar is influencing you being a dumb-a$$? If you can't figure it out go see (and pay) a psychologist to help you with your problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Larry,
That is the only common sense statement you made in this thread. The rest is just theistic-justified, ad hominum bulls**t, done in such a desperate attempt to defend their deity by slamming the unbeliever, ... for no better reason than that he disbelieves.
As a result, it illustrates, Yet Again, your total *lack* of said proof of your god.
Thanks for illustrating to me Yet Again why I left your mentality behind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I think an Atheist knows what he doesn't believe.. and an Agnostic doesn't know WHAT he believes..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, I claim the title of "agnostic" (I actually would prefer "non-theist" but, whatever) as I simply see atheism as connoting a certainty that's impossible to have.
How could one KNOW that there is no God? It's pretty hard to prove a negative and - given a being that has the power to create the heavens and the earth - how hard would it be for Him to keep Himself annonymous if that was His desire?
Now the religions of the world, OTOH, I think pretty much disprove themselves, just by reading their doctrines. They generally tend toward the absurd, magical, incongruous, and just plain wrong, but usually with a big reward for those that stay faithful. So I don't have any problem in disavowing any acceptance of those.
But is there an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (and largely capricious and uncaring) God floating around in space somewhere? Well, I dunno (and... I don't much care)...
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Both however, believe the burden of proof rests on those who claim there is/are gods.
As rants go, that's not a bad one. I'm not sure what it has to do with me 'cause I'm just relaying what I've learned from atheists (on the subject). Therefore, I suppose, if you have a bltch with anyone you should take it up with them.
As for me, I really don't care what you believe or don't believe.
If I was interested in and/or attempting to prove anything to you, you might have a point. I'm not sure what it might be but, I'm sure there's one in there somewhere.You're welcome. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Interesting. You're one of the few atheists/agnostics I've seen capitalizing the word god and the masculine pronoun. Must be a hangover from previous days -- right? Give it a few more years and you'll get over it. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Perhaps he was trying to be polite. ... But you're right, as I imagine he'll get over it, and I'd be willing to bet that it won't even be as long as a few more years.
... I know I have. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
boy, oh, boy, larry, you got me good with that one! add a couple of "nyah, nyah, nyah"s and i'd probably take my ball and go home. ::sniff::
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
atheist = I believe there is no god or gods.
agnostic = I don't know whether or not there's a god or gods.
theist = I believe there is a god or gods.
Jew = I believe there is a specific God who played a direct role in our history.
Christian = I believe in the Jewish God, but I believe he's done more than Jewish people think.
Muslim = I believe in the Jewish God, but I believe Christians and Jews have misrepresented Him.
Unification Church = I believe in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God, and he owns the Washington Times.
Jehovah's Witness = I believe in the Christian and Jewish God, and He's no fun.
The Way = I believe in the Christian God, and He doesn't mind if you sleep around as long as you nitpick over the placement of commas.
Post Way = I believe in the Christian God, but He's a little taller and smarter than I gave Him credit for.
Other Post Way = Can I go back to agnostic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Must be a hangover from previous days -- right?"
Uh, no...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
The following is another viewpoint on this subject. It's been so long (October 14, 2002) since I last read it that I forget who wrote it. I believe it was written by someone from a board I once participated on. If you want to skip through the whole article that's fine but I think his conclusion at the end is worth noting.
What is atheism?
(also some thoughts on theism and agnosticism)
________________________________________
The thoughts expressed below are mine. I haven't directly used any material as a source in writing this definitional essay although I should give credit to George Smith and the paper "Freethought Today" for the insights they provided when I read them over a year before writing this. I'm sure there are other sources that I have read in the past which have influenced the thoughts below, but they don't come to mind at the moment.
________________________________________
Some of the most poorly understood words are: theism, atheism, and agnosticism. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to provide a definitional framework for the three words. I'm confident that many people who read this will still choose to define the words differently than I. The purpose of the definitions is not to establish some sort of absolute truth but to provide a working definition that at least I can point to and say, "this is what I think the definition is, and this is how I use these words". If you find the definitions useful, feel free to 'label' yourself using them and direct anyone to this site who doesn't know why you call yourself by one (or more) of these terms.
Perhaps the biggest reason the above words are misunderstood is that theists tend to define atheism, atheists tend to define theism, and people who call themselves agnostics don't want to belong to either of the definitions the other two parties have given to each other.
First I will begin with atheism, which will also be the main focus throughout since I think it is the most misunderstood and poorly defined of the three. At the above linked definition of "atheism" someone called R. Hall says, "Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness". This is just one example of a theist incorrectly defining atheism. Atheism is not a system (ferocious or otherwise), it says nothing about what is above us, it says nothing about tenderness, and atheists can be just as excited and awed about life as theists. The atheists I know and have read are, on average, more excited and awed by the wonders of life than theists. This statement is not intended to knock theists, but merely to point out that the above definition is a false generalization that has nothing to do with the 'real' definition of atheism.
There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim (and if you don't believe me I can send you countless emails I have received from theists or you can read their definitions on the web for yourself) that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable", etc.
Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.
To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.
Now let's move on to theism briefly. Theism is simply the opposite of atheism. A good definition of theism is "a positive assertion that god does exist". Whatever this god may be to the theist is irrelevant to the definition of theism as a word on its own. Based on these two definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you lack such a positive assertion. There is no middle ground--which brings us to our third word of agnosticism.
When you break down the word agnostic, you come up with a term meaning "without knowledge" or "unknowable". The word agnostic isn't a very old word. Despite this fact, T.H. Huxley, who created the term, used it to mean our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else. The word has changed meaning over the years, and people have tended to use the term as a sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In my opinion, such a middle ground doesn't exist. One either asserts that there is a god or they lack such an assertion. Agnostics have labeled themselves as such because they don't understand the definition of atheism or because they have heard only about the 'strong atheists' who do make a positive assertion that there is no god and they don't personally hold such a strong assertion.
My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.
The reason I claim that no one can know god is this. Many who believe in god don't claim any first hand knowledge. They will tell you that their belief comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or their wanting to believe. Those people are fairly easy to rule out as non-agnostics as they really don't assert knowledge in the first place. They can readily be dubbed agnostics because they are without knowledge of their belief. Their belief is simply a belief and nothing more. The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or external evidence. Some claim to converse with, see, or otherwise personally experience god. The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same 'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists, or others who want to see proof).
Knowledge in any item isn't something based solely on personal experience. If I have a personal experience that gives me knowledge, I should be able to share that knowledge in a verifiable manner with others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. For instance, if I figure out that the earth is round based on my personal experience of flying in the space shuttle and seeing first hand that it is round, I can share that knowledge with others either by having them also go in the space shuttle and view earth for themselves, or I can take photos or provide some other sort of evidence of my experience to others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. Their knowledge of the earth's shape is then based on reality rather than their own desires to believe or some other "non-proof". Real knowledge should be objective and capable of being tested, demonstrated, and/or experimentally verified. Given these factors, even those that claim 'knowledge' of god are agnostics as their 'knowledge' is really a misuse of the word. What they have isn't knowledge. What they have is a belief in their own experience and nothing more. If they had 'knowledge', they would be able to share it with the doubter, the evidence seeker, and those who don't already believe.
To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
The trouble with you Sprawled is that you don't realize you never brought a "ball" to the "game" in the first place. You only brought a "bat".
I have some extra Kleenex lying around that I'm not using. If you ask me real politely I'll gladly give them to you. ;)
Oh. My mistake. I assumed that at some point in life you were a Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Larry, (referring to your post on the October 2002 article)
Kudos!!
An article that provides a clear, informative, and balanced definition/information as regards the atheist/theist topic. ... And very much enjoyed by yours truly. :)
Thanks for posting that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're welcome Garth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.