Two times in two weeks I've had a conversation with friends about agnosticism. Both friends -- one a rational, intelligent person and another one who ... well, let's just say he wasn't as bright -- claimed to be agnostic when asked the very, very loaded question "Do you believe in God?"
I used to just ignore it when people would answer "I'm agnostic," to such a question, even though I took issue with it. As an atheist, I knew that my so-called agnostic friends were really atheists.
Maybe they didn't know it yet, but I knew it.
But in these two cases I actually discussed the issue with them both. The first time, it was a short and interesting conversation in which we ended up both agreeing that my pal was indeed an atheist. The second conversation was much longer, much more difficult, and ended without a rational conclusion. Such is often the way with theistic discussions.
I'll try again with all of you, and see how many "agnostics" I can convince to start calling themselves "atheists." Get comfortable, and open your mind ...
Let's start with a definition to make sure we understand the word "theism": a theist has a belief in the existence of a god or a pantheon of gods. That's what theism is. So, if you have a belief in one or more gods then you are a theist. Simple so far, right?
If you are unsure whether you believe in a god, try hitting Google for phrases like "list of gods" or "who can I worship?" or "names by which I can disavow responsibility for my own actions."
If you have a belief in one or more gods then you are a theist. Conversely (and here's the part that trips people up for some reason) if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. That's the only other choice. Atheism and theism are a binary, tautological pair and they cover the entire range of possibilities. There is no third choice.
Agnosticism is not a third choice. For that matter, being a real estate agent or a woman or a speaker of Esperanto is not a third choice. You cannot claim, for instance, "I am not a theist or an atheist, instead I speak Esperanto."
Agnosticism is the notion that one cannot have knowledge of the existence of a god. Note that being agnostic has nothing to do with belief. You can believe in the existence of a chair, or not have belief in the existence of a chair -- that's the whole range when it comes to belief in that chair. As a wholly separate issue, there is the idea that you can have knowledge of that chair or that you are not able to have knowledge of that chair. This has nothing to do with belief aside from the rational idea that if you do happen to have knowledge of a thing then it follows that you will believe in it, if you are sane.
Of course, some would argue that belief in a mystical, spiritual, or even just invisible force that guides your life and has secret plans for you would be a good indication that you are, in fact, not sane by the normal definition of such things. But that's another issue.
One's agnosticism has nothing to do with one's answer to the question "do you believe in God?" because that is a question about belief. It is similarly the case that one's gender, ability to speak Esperanto, and real estate license status have nothing to do with that question either. We might think they are of interest to bring up, perhaps to avoid answering or perhaps because we're just talkative, but they do not answer the question.
That question is answered with "yes, I am a theist" or "no, I am an atheist." It cannot be answered with "I am a French real estate agent." It cannot be answered with "I speak Esperanto and can sell you a lively new home overlooking a golf course." And it cannot be answered with "I am agnostic."
Now, the question can be avoided with any of these answers, but if you are going to duck the question then at least do so with something original. Don't just say "I'm agnostic." Instead say something like "Do I believe in God? Well, let me tell you -- hey, is that an invisible magic monkey tree behind you?" Then run away. If the person turns to look, then next time they confront you then you can hit them with "Do you believe in invisible magic monkey trees?"
I wonder how you say that in Esperanto?
I have to respectfaully disagree. Just as believing in God comes with a whole host of things, not believing also does. Agnostocism is a rightful category that exists to classify a group of people who don't fall into polarized categories.
It also makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because it sounds like the argument... "You're a lesbian, you just don't know it yet."
Acknoleging the class of agnosticm permits us to acknowledge the grey in the world, when people have a tendency to want it as black and white.
www.worldcantwait.com
I don't think there is a grey area when it comes to "Do you believe in God?" Either you do, or you don't. Agnosticism comes into play when question the existance of proof.
While proof leads to a belief, proof and belief are not the same thing.
You can say there is no way to prove (i.e. acknowledging agnosticism) the existance (or nonexistance) of God, and still believe in God OR not bel just as you can say there is no way to prove the existance (or nonexistance) of God and be an atheist.
The same goes for gnosticism. You can be a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. Gnosticism (or agnosticism) isn't not a third option. Its not a gray area. You can say there IS a way to prove the existance (or nonexistance) of God and still believe in God, or you can say there IS a way to prove the existance (or nonexistance) of God and not believe.
Agnosticism is a separate issue when it comes to belief.
Also, this is not meant to say all agnostics are atheists, but rather that most people who think agnosticism is a option (and take that option) are actually atheists.
Agnosticism is the "I don't know if God exists" to the "Do you believe in God?" question. The question wasn't "Does God exist?", in which agnosticism would be an acceptable answer. The other options, both yes and no, deal with gnosticism- if you think there is evidence to support your yes/no. While you can challenge the idea that its impossible to have knowledge/proof of God - or lack thereof (agnosticism) or that its possible to have knowledge/proof of a God - or lack thereof (gnosticism).
Again, note that agnosticism and gnosticism are their own little pair, separate from atheism and theism. Agnosticism/gnosticism ONLY deals with notion that you can or cannot have proof or knowledge of existance/nonexistance. Atheism/theism ONLY deals with belief, not whether you can prove that your belief if right or wrong.
I think it depends on how you define "God." God is often associated with that badass guy in the Bible, but there is also a belief that God is everything. Agnostics (at least some of them) believe in God that is everything, but not in the badass guy of the Bible fame. Thus, they neither believe nor disbelieve in God.
I don't know how much sense I was making.
"You are narrow-minded because you disagree with me."
Is there more of this to be found on this platform?
Thanks,
i think you're confusing agnostics with pantheists.
I Worship At Her Alter
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
Most of the time, the question of theism comes into play with a specific deity rather than a lifeforce. I understand where you're coming from with the definition of God (being a deity or a lifeforce), but I think part of the definition of a deity IS a god/goddess.
Let me note that theism includes Christianity, Judism, Islam, and any other religions that believe in a specific deity or a collection of deities. I'm not referring to theism solely in the Christian aspect of the word, but rather in the deity aspect, as opposed to the lifeforce aspect.
This is a silly semantical "dictionary definition" argument. "Atheist" can mean "someone who doesn't believe in God", or it can mean "someone who believes God does not exist". The second is a much stronger assertion; just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean that I believe it doesn't exist - often I simply have no opinion or belief one way or the other. To take a more mundane concrete example, suppose someone shows me an envelope and say there is a business card inside. I have no reason to believe them, nor do I have a reason to believe they are lying. I don't believe there's a card inside, but that doesn't mean I actively believe that there is no card inside - it means I simply don't have enough evidence to have a belief.
Under the first definition of "atheist", I agree it's a binary choice (you believe or you don't believe). I don't believe in God, but I don't believe God doesn't exist. I think such questions are not answerable. So I consider myself agnostic (another word with various meanings, alas).
Using your example with the business card, you are an agnostic atheist when it comes to your belief of the business card.
The part where you say you don't have enough evidence to belief in the business card leads you to believe that the business card isn't there (even though it COULD be there, you just don't enough proof to believe it). Which is the very definition of agnostic atheism. The ONLY part that deals that agnosticism (or gnosticism) is that part about about proof, evidence, knowledge. Belief itself is NOT agnosticism/gnosticism, but one's stance on gnosticism leads to their stance on belief.
"I don't believe there's a card inside (atheism), but that doesn't mean I actively believe that there is no card inside - it means I simply don't have enough evidence (agnosticism) to have a belief (atheism)."
Using your example again, it sounds like you don't think there's a card inside, but still act as if there is a card inside because you don't have enough proof otherwise. Your activity leads other people to believe you believe in the card while you actually don't. Its a closet atheist. You don't think there's really a God (which is atheism), but you still go to Church and pray and all that jazz because you don't enough proof to suggest otherwise (which is agnosticism).
Which is sort of the point I wanted to make; that most people to take the agnostic card (the peope who say there's not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existance of God) still have an initial stance on their belief (like you do), in which most agnostics are atheists, but don't know it.
"Ĉu vi kredas je nevideblaj magiaj simiaj arboj?
xD
"Do you believe in invisible magic monkey trees?"
Or to be more botanically correct, and assuming the writer is deficient in English and meant to write 'monkey-trees' (with a hyphen!), then:
Ĉu vi kredas je nevideblaj magiaj araŭkarioj?
mankso
http://esperanto.memlink.ca
I can easily latch onto the notion that you are either a Theist or Atheist as a binary choice of for or against a belief in supernatural creation. There is indeed a third choice in any binary decision: not knowing enough to make a choice. Agnostics stake the claim that we do not have the answer to the question because it outside the scope of our knowledge. We don't believe in any of the gods defined by humanity so we are not theists, but likewise we do not reject the possibility of a supernatural creation. However, we are not Atheists even though we are atheistic about the creators defined by humanity.
I can take this to your example of the chair as well. I have a wooden rocking chair in the spare bedroom of my house. Do you have to choose to either believe there is a wooden rocking chair there or not? That's the only choices you present even though you have not been in the spare bedroom of my house. Is it fair to make you choose between two choices when actually there might be a leather armchair instead and I'm just confused in making you make that choice? In that case neither choice is exactly correct. Yes, there is a chair but it wasn't described correctly at all. The person smart enough to say they definitely don't know because they've never been in my spare bedroom is the correct one.
www.AgnosticUniverse.org
Atheism is defined by a lack of faith in a supreme or pantheon of deities. Faith is usually defined as believing in something without concrete evidence.
On the chair:
If you don't think you have enough information (which goes along with the definition of agnosticism) to believe in the chair in your spare bedroom, your lack of faith in the chair is exact definition of atheism. Atheism is not defined of having something, but rather the lack of something.
Not making a choice on the matter is still the same as not answering the question. Agnosticism is not answering the question. Therefore, we're both right.
i see what your saying, both sides. i usually answer that i believe in an unknamed something that does some sort of guidence to the world/our lives and we have no clue why or how. i believe there is a something, force, diety, mystic mokey of jedi. but i don't know if it fits in any given category or concept. it may just be imposible to know the answer at all. so i believe, i just have no clue what it is or what it can do. it could be your god or i'm just insane. thus, i say i am agnostic on my philisophical days and when i don't care, i'm atheist.
Can't we just state that those that are unsure in the belief of God are...uh, unsure? There are plenty of people who are unsure of what to believe in so lets just say they are unsure. ^_^;
Phoenixes are superb. They are also fictional beings..but that isn't the point!
"belief in a mystical, spiritual, or even just invisible force that guides your life and has secret plans for you" -- isn't anywhere near my definition of "God".
So, as an atheist you must believe that humans are the highest form of being in and outside of the universe?
That sounds a little conceited.
How can you explain that nearly every tribe, race, society throughout history has worshiped some sort of higher power? Were they all just smoking the same thing?
What about all of the documented unexplainables like miracles, pyramids, UFO's, faith healers, near death experiences, shamen, psychics, etc? If there was no higher power to tap into or explain these things then how are they possible?
I think you are taking the term "God" too literally, there are many gods that people worship that are not and old white man with a beard who "has secret plans for you".
"belief in a mystical, spiritual, or even just invisible force that guides your life and has secret plans for you" -- isn't anywhere near my definition of "God".
So, as an atheist you must believe that humans are the highest form of being in and outside of the universe?
That sounds a little conceited.
How can you explain that nearly every tribe, race, society throughout history has worshiped some sort of higher power? Were they all just smoking the same thing?
What about all of the documented unexplainables like miracles, pyramids, UFO's, faith healers, near death experiences, shamen, psychics, etc? If there was no higher power to tap into or explain these things then how are they possible?
I think you are taking the term "God" too literally, there are many gods that people worship that are not an old white man with a beard who "has secret plans for you".