Agnostic vs Atheist

Atheism seems to be completely misunderstood in this topic. An atheist is a person who does not believe there is a god. This applies to those who merely do not know if there is a god and also applies to those who claim to know for certain there are no gods. Both positions are atheist positions because they both assert that the person lacks the belief that there are gods. There are essentially two subcategories of atheism: positive and negative. Negative atheism is one where the person does not know for certain that there are no gods but the person doesn't accept the proposition that they exist. Positive atheism is one where the person claims to know for certain that there are no gods (a positive assertion is made.)

Agnosticism is different from atheism in the sense that agnosticism is philosophical while atheism is theological. The agnostic who says "I don't know for certain there are gods but I believe there are/is" is an agnostic theist. The person doesn't claim to have knowledge (hence agnostic) but the lack of knowledge doesn't preclude the choice of belief (accepting an unproven assertion.) The agnostic who says "I don't know and I won't choose a belief because beliefs rely on the acceptance of unproven assertions" is an agnostic negative atheist. The person is a negative atheist because the person doesn't assert that gods do not exist but the person also doesn't believe (accept the unproven assertion) that they do exist. The agnostic who says "I don't know if Gods exist but I believe they do not" is an agnostic positive atheist. This position is similar to the agnostic theist in that the person doesn't claim to have knowledge but belief (accepting unproven assertions) isn't excluded.

There is no such thing as an agnostic that isn't also a theist or atheist. Agnosticism is not a third-party in the theological groups because theism and atheism are all-encompassing. One must choose one of the following positions: claim to know there are no gods (positive atheism), not know but believe there are no gods (negative atheism), not know but lack belief in gods (negative atheism), not know but believe there are gods (theism), or claim to know there are gods (theism). There is no middle-ground between these choices. Those who try asserting that agnosticism is a middle-ground are confused because they have erased the boundary between philosophy and theology. If they haven't done that then they have wrongly defined atheism so that only positive atheists are left. Many people define atheism wrongly by asserting that an atheist must claim to have knowledge on the matter and then, based on their false definition, they present one of those false dichotomies like "you are with them [and their false claim to knowledge] or against them--be an agnostic if anything!" It is impossible to only be an agnostic. Agnosticism is a philosophical position and not a theological one. Of the three theological positions (2 for negative atheism and one for theism) above, one must apply to "the agnostic." There is no way around it. Most agnostics, as far as I can tell, are negative atheists and just don't want to be labeled as such.

megamanXplosion

..so what catgory would you put me in ?

I claim that nothing "exists" except as "concepts" in relationship to in to "other concepts". Thus "God exists" in as much as it is in relationship to "believers" and "disbelievers". "Reality" is always "conceptual" and is a matter of social consenus. "Knowledge" is about "successful prediction" which gives rise to "consenus of expectations".

I label myself "an atheist" because I have a negative relationship with "God", since I see it as a pernicious concept at the macro-level irrespective of the psychological security it gives at the individual level.

I would put you in the category "confused."

Your categorization is a dualistic one based on on the assumption that "knowledge" is about an "objective reality". But "believers" claim to "know God exists" which forces a serious sub-analysis of "knowledge" and "existence".

Think about it !

I predicted you would respond that way regardless of the answer I provided. As such, I jumped ahead of the conversation and categorized as you a confused individual. I did not answer your first response, I answered the second one. Think about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word games. Agnostics probably truly think they cannot know. Some would fall on the deist's side in a pinch, the rest to the atheists. Depends on character. I find it interesting that people have to try to define atheists in ways atheists do not define themselves in these discussions.
-----------------------------------------------------


I repeat my earlier assertion and with that, retire temporarily from the thread.

That's hilarious Edgar.

Atheists and secularists like Baron d'Holbach (Good Sense 1772), Charles Bradlaugh (The Freethinker's Text-Book 1876), Charles Southwell (founder of the atheistic Oracle of Reason periodical 1842), G. W. Foote (What Is Agnosticism 1902), Joseph McCabe (A Rationalist Encyclopedia 1950), Chapman Cohen (Primitive Survivals in Modern Thought 1935), and many others have defined it exactly as I have. Theologians like Richard Watson (A Biblical and Theological Dictionary 1831) and Robert Flint (Agnosticism 1903) have also given the same definition. Anyone familiar with Etymology will also give the same definition (read paragraph below). Are none of these people qualified to know what atheism means?

Etymologically, it is impossible for atheist to be different from the definition I gave. Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods." The prefix "a" in the word "atheism" means "no" or "without." This means the definition of atheism is either "no belief in the existence of a god or gods" or "without belief in the existence of a god or gods." In short, it means "without theism." There is no way to twist the definitions around so that "a" becomes "non" and is inserted in the middle of the definition to become "belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods." Such a transformation is etymologically impossible.

They would then be wrong.

Megaman's description of the etymology of atheist (as a person who has no belief in god(s) repeats what I've said on these threads, lo, too many times. I've also added the illustrative word void, in that I personally am void of belief in a god or gods. I have no problem with other atheists actively believing there are none, but I feel that is a secondary step, an activity I haven't interest in myself. I don't involve myself in believing there are no elves, tooth fairies, etc. - not to be insulting, I can understand those who believe in a god or gods. Megaman described these two types of atheists as positive and negative; some will use the words active and passive.

This explanation hasn't been on this particular thread before, that I've noticed; I haven't reread the thread lately. Some of us are weary of posting on every single thread in which the words agnostic and atheist come to attention. There seems to be no sense of thread history here... as years go by. We all are doomed - theists, agnostics, atheists - to talk about this through internet infinity.

As to what an agnostic is, I don't particularly care - people will describe themselves in different ways, and I can understand their points of view.

Etymology is not sociolinguistics. The historical "roots" of words do not always correspond precisely with actual contemporary usage. I insist that, according to my observations of usage, a meaningful distinction can be made between "hard" atheism, a positive DISbelief in God (is this Megaman's "positive" atheism?) and "soft" atheism (negative atheism?) like mine in that I simply turn away from what appears to be to be a meaningless concept. In Fresco's sense, I have a negative relationship with the concept of God.
The "hard" atheist may be said to have a positive relationship with the negative version of that concept. Like the career atheist, Madelene O'hara, he has a positive relationship with the concept of NO-God.

I don't understand, JL, how what I said is different from what you said...

The etymological basis of the word atheism happens to fit my usage of it, which can be described as negative or passive. Other's usage of the word in respect to themselves may be more positive, or active.

I'll add that if the etymology didn't fit, I wouldn't care.
Indeed, in past arguments, people always bring up what the definitions are in Webster, which, as I remember, don't include the passive explanation. I don't give a fig and have said so.

Osso, I don't think I suggested there were any differences. We are usually in such agreement that I rarely make reference to your comments (or you to mine, for that matter). Save a lot of ink that way.

Not printing out the pages saves significantly more ink

Oops! Don't get old, Timber.

Way too late for that, JL

Oh, uh, sorry, JL, threw me there for a minute...

It is still the contemporary usage amongst the majority of atheists. It is mainly agnostics and theists that give the historically and etymologically wrong definition. The sociolinguistic factor would always give the misrepresentation by theists and agnostics an added credence it doesn't deserve because they are the majority. If atheists and agnostics were the most popular positions and they started misrepresenting theism by defining it as "the belief in many gods" (purposely excluded the less extreme stance of belief in one god) I hardly think any of the Christians would argue it is correct or that it is sociolinguistically accurate because the atheists and agnostics are the majority. The entire sociolinguistics argument is, to put it quite bluntly, horse ****.

-- You're not a believer, are you? Haines asked. I mean, a believer in the narrow sense of the word. Creation from nothing and miracles and a personal God.

-- There's only one sense of the word, it seems to me, Stephen said.

Haines stopped to take out a smooth silver case in which twinkled a green stone. He sprang it open with his thumb and offered it.

-- Thank you, Stephen said, taking a cigarette.

Haines helped himself and snapped the case to. He put it back in his sidepocket and took from his waistcoatpocket a nickel tinderbox, sprang it open too, and, having lit his cigarette, held the flaming spunk towards Stephen in the shell of his hands.

-- Yes, of course, he said, as they went on again. Either you believe or you don't, isn't it? Personally I couldn't stomach that idea of a personal God. You don't stand for that, I suppose?

-- You behold in me, Stephen said with grim displeasure, a horrible example of free thought.

from Ulysses, by James Joyce


Like Joyce, I see only one sense of the word, but leave it open to others to find their own interpretation. That's what free thought is all about.

Let me try a simplification of my position.

1. Both "atheists" and "agnostics" recognize the "existence of the concept God".
2. "Atheists" hold that this is "only a concept" and not a useful one for them.
3. "Agnostics" leave open a possibility that "God" may be "more than a concept" ( The position of believers)

My ontological position is that there is nothing more than "concepts"., whether they be gods, electrons or trees. What matters is whether these concepts are "useful"...i.e. whether the concept of "myself" has a positive relationship with "it". For me "religious agnosticism" is philosophically inseparable from general ontological problems (i.e. definitions of "existence") but traditional definitions of "agnosticism " ignore that issue.

Fresco, as you may know already, I too hold that "our" world (the world of human experience as opposed to that of a worm) is our on-going construction, as in Schopenhauer's The World is My Idea. But I do not feel that there is an isolated constructor who exists in a noumenal vacuum--I reject solipsism, of course. There is no "I" who does the constructing. Indeed, the notion of "I" is just another construction made by a generative reality (the "living" Cosms). That reality is not something I cognitively realize immediately (as in "immaculate conception"); it is realized through the medium of my historically conditioned nature whatever that may be, physically, psychologically, culturally (all constructions).
My point is that there is a WORLD, not "out there" separate from a ME "in here." It's a world that includes me and it exists in its own mysterious way. We, qua naive realists of everyday practical life, poets, artists, philosophical ontologists, contemporary physicists, etc., are busy constructing interpretations of our "impressions" of that world.
Nevertheless, there are moments when we DO have an immediate awareness of that Reality, when we passively observe our immediate sensual connection with, or reflection of, it. To repeat, such awareness (a form of knowledge) is possible because we ARE in fact fact that Reality; our immediate sensations are ITS workings.
But, then, as you note, that knowledge is ineffable--even to ourselves.

My knowledge (I do not call it "cognition" yet until I've absorbed the Santiago Theory of Cognition) is, as I've tried to indicate, a reflecction of MY little nature (I love the saying "knowledge is a function of the knower"). I am very willing to acknowledge the possiblity of knowledge at much higher levels of reality. Systems which subsume countless nested systems amongst which is mine.
The idea of Truth (whether it be the absolute formula of the sought after unified field theory--or the total collection of "facts" about the Cosmos) is of little interest to me. Indeed, as I see it, such a comprehensive cognition is beyond human capacity and may very well be the reason we have invented a God, in order to have an omnicient Knower of that exhaustive Truth. The latter would make no sense without the former.

Golly dang I've been rambling.