Anonymous
Unregistered
[sistermoon] I like calling myself an atheist, mostly because it shocks the hell out of people, but I think I'm mostly skeptical, meaning I doubt that there really is a god. To say I'm agnostic feels like I admit there is one, I just don't know which one. They both sound the same to me.
How can anyone know for sure?
I'm now starting to say I'm a humanist. Which in fundie speak is as bad if not worse than an atheist.
So, really, what's the difference between a skeptic and an agnostic?
I think most atheists would agree that there is no way that anyone can know if there is a god. Atheists just *lack* a belief in a supreme deity. I would say that you doubting "that there really is a god" means that you don't believe in God, which means you are an atheist.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but unless you are coming from a position of believing... THEN beginning to "doubt that there really is a god" (which would make you a skeptical theist), then you lack a belief in God or deities.
Remember, theism/atheism is a matter of belief or non-belief, despite any evidence or lack of. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of whether or not you think a god's existence can be known. Therefore, it is possible to be an "agnostic atheist", which means you lack belief that God exists, and you don't think the truth can be known. I think few atheists are "gnostic atheists", which means that they lack belief and think that God can be known to not exist. Even the great analogy of Russel's teapot was thought up as a rational point that there's no way to prove that it doesn't exist, because it could be hiding anywhere, thus countering the invitation from a debating theist that the atheist should attempt to disprove God, which isn't possible.
Skepticism can be a part of any position, but I don't think can be a position on its own. It is the fuel which motivates the mind of any position to question, rather than accept blindly.
Daniel Florien
Administrator
I think there are many kinds of agnostics. I'm technically an agnostic atheist — I don't know if there's a god, but I don't think it's possible to know for sure, and I live my life like there isn't one.
The basis of that is skepticism — a certain way of looking at the world.
So skepticism is a method, and agnosticism is a result.
I agree with Daniel insofar as I think skepticism is "a way of looking at the world."
Agnosticism is best understood by simply looking at its Greek roots, I think:
<i>a</i>- prefix that literally means "no" or "not" or "without."
<i>gnosis</i> means "knowledge."
So, an agnostic by that definition, is someone who is "without knowledge" or someone who thinks there is "no knowledge" that can be had with respect to a particular topic.
Same with athiesm
<i>a</i> prefix
<i>theos</i> "God"
No-God.
In sum, I think skepticism is a cognitive framework, a way of thinking, and agnosticism is a result, like Daniel said. An person who's reached agnosticism via his/her skeptical cognitive framework would say something, "I don't know for sure if there is or is not a God, but I do know there's not enough evidence to give me a basis for that knowledge." It leaves the question of God's existence open to new evidence.
In practical usage, I tend to think that those who self-identify as atheists tend to be more forth-coming, that is, "There is not a god." Not to imply that they wouldn't be open to new evidence, but only that they've made a more active decision against God based on the evidence they've seen (or not seen).
In short, I think the two statements sum the difference: "I don't have enough knowledge to know if there is a God." And, "There is no God."
Most agnostics that I've known personally are technically agnostics (with respect to definitions) but functional atheists, as Daniel described himself above.
Daniel Florien
Administrator
It does allow html, but you have to use "em" instead of "i" and "strong" instead of "b".
Ty
Moderator
I describe myself as a naturalist and a materialist.
Atheism is just a byproduct of those two things. I don't have any specific skepticism about gods that I don't also have about magic or ESP.
Skepticism is an incredibly useful tool, though, about anything. It is the foundational principle of the scientific method, which is the most powerful tool for learning about our universe ever discovered.
PozzSka
Member
Atheist refers to belief (of lack thereof).
Agnostic refers to knowledge or information.
An individual can know their car is white, but force themselves to believe that it is black. The same way a believer can't know that a deity exists, but they can believe it to be true.
I agree that skepticism (or scepticism) is a mindset or as Ty put it, an "incredibly useful tool."
SleepyJ910
Member
To belabor the points...
I am a (consider myself to be) gnostic atheist, meaning my belief that there is no God is as strong as my belief that my right hand is actually my right hand and my senses are not tricking me about reality, and at some point you got to draw a line about how much evidence is required to call something 'knowledge', since all knowledge is a belief in some form.
Obviously you can't disprove something that can't be detected, by definition, but in my view the lack of evidence is so staggering for the existence of supernatural beings, but the amount of evidence for human fabrication is so great, that if Jesus appeared and slapped me with a fish I would just conclude that I have schizophrenia because I 'know' that can't happen.
I suppose I make the point because agnosticism means nothing if "we're all agnostics".
Measure
Member
I consider myself hard atheist, but I do admit you can't know for sure if there is a God out there.
On the other hand, if you allow for one, you are allowing for others. So how many Gods am I allowing, anyhow? That's where it gets too confusing to me and I just say, "hard atheist".
I can say for sure that I absolutely believe there is no christian god, as christianity doesn't seem any more persuasive than any other world religion when it comes to actual evidence.
You must log in to post.
