Agnosticism is not seperate from atheism

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I've noticed in the religion section that some people believe this is the spectrum of viewpoints concerning the existence of God:

Theism==============Agnosticism=================At heism

WRONG!!! I thought about writing this here because it is such a common mistake and I wanted to make it clear here why this is completely wrong.

The first spectrum (Theism/Atheism) addresses what you BELIEVE, With theism meaning a belief in god(s) and atheism meaning a lack of belief in god(s).

The second spectrum (Gnosticism/Agnosticism) addresses how much you KNOW, with gnosticism meaning knowledge (knowing for sure) and agnosticism meaning a lack of knowledge (not sure).

You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, etc.

In that case, a person cannot claim that "being an agnostic is not accepting the claims on either side, therefore I am not an atheist or a theist", like some members have done so far. Someone who lacks a belief in god(s) and is not sure is called an agnostic atheist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Gnosticism is a Jewish/Christian sect, not a position on the existance of deities.

You are wrong.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

No, you are confusing gnosticism as in the sect you described, with gnosticism, the opposite of agnosticism (a simple Google search would show this). It is true "gnosticism" under the definition I am using is rarely used, though I am using it for clarity, and the reason for this is:

The words "agnostic" and "gnostic" (by the definition I am using) were terms invented by Thomas Huxley in 1869, therefore nothing to do with the sect you described.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, you are confusing gnosticism as in the sect you described, with gnosticism, the opposite of agnosticism (a simple Google search would show this).

The first result in a Google search brings up the Wiki page about the sect. In fact, the first page is dominated by similar results.


It is true "gnosticism" under the definition I am using is rarely used, though I am using it for clarity, and the reason for this is:

You usage of the word has the opposite effect of clarifying matters, by your own standards (A Google search).


The words "agnostic" and "gnostic" (by the definition I am using) were terms invented by Thomas Huxley in 1869, therefore nothing to do with the sect you described.

Gnosticism (the sect) has been around far longer than Huxley's definition of the term.

Also, it would help if you defined exactly what you meant by "agnosticism" - is it the position that we don't know, but could find out in principle whether deities exist, or the position that we cannot know, not even in principle?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

The first result in a Google search brings up the Wiki page about the sect. In fact, the first page is dominated by similar results.

I was not clear enough, I meant a search on agnosticism.


You usage of the word has the opposite effect of clarifying matters, by your own standards (A Google search).

Again, I was not clear enough.


Gnosticism (the sect) has been around far longer than Huxley's definition of the term.

I did say under the definition that I was using, therefore this is completely irrelevant.


Also, it would help if you defined exactly what you meant by "agnosticism" - is it the position that we don't know, but could find out in principle whether deities exist, or the position that we cannot know, not even in principle?

The second one is far more recent, so yes, I'm using the far more common first one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was not clear enough, I meant a search on agnosticism.

Again, I was not clear enough.

I did say under the definition that I was using, therefore this is completely irrelevant.

None of the Google search results for "agnosticism" used "gnosticism" in the sense you are using it, not so far as I can see.

It seems the definition you are using is unique to you.


The second one is far more recent, so yes, I'm using the far more common first one.

Then how can it be anything other than a position between theism and atheism? One may not feel they know that god(s) exist or not, but they can certainly make a stab about how likely they are to.

[scarletghoul]

Interesting thread. But I dont see how you can believe something without knowing it.. Hmm, not sure though.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Interesting thread. But I dont see how you can believe something without knowing it.. Hmm, not sure though.

I think that we can all agree that we do not know for 100% sure if god(s) exist or not. However, that does not mean that the probability of something jumps to 50-50, this is because there is no scientific evidence for god(s).

Of course, the reply will be "but you can't disprove god". You can't disprove Amen-Ra, you can't disprove Zeus, you can't disprove the Celestial Teapot (invented by the philosopher Bertrand Russel, you can find it on Wikipedia) that orbits the Sun on a path between Earth and Mars, that I may also add is too small to be detected by telescopes. However do you believe that these ancient god(s) and the teapot have a 50-50 chance at existence? Scientifically speaking, yes all of these have a very, very small chance of existing, but because of the high unlikelihood, we all in practice have a lack of belief in the teapot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that we can all agree that we do not know for 100% sure if god(s) exist or not. However, that does not mean that the probability of something jumps to 50-50, this is because there is no scientific evidence for god(s).

Of course, the reply will be "but you can't disprove god". You can't disprove Amen-Ra, you can't disprove Zeus, you can't disprove the Celestial Teapot (invented by the philosopher Bertrand Russel, you can find it on Wikipedia) that orbits the Sun on a path between Earth and Mars, that I may also add is too small to be detected by telescopes. However do you believe that these ancient god(s) and the teapot have a 50-50 chance at existence? Scientifically speaking, yes all of these have a very, very small chance of existing, but because of the high unlikelihood, we all in practice have a lack of belief in the teapot.

Which is why I admit I am a de facto atheist, paying no heed to the concept except to criticise it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Interesting thread. But I dont see how you can believe something without knowing it.. Hmm, not sure though.

According to conventional epistemology (the study of knowledge), to "know" something requires three conditions:
1. Belief
2. Justification
3. Truth

So, according to this branch of philosophy, it is entirely necessary to 'believe' in order to 'know,' but impossible to 'know' without 'belief.'


The second spectrum (Gnosticism/Agnosticism) addresses how much you KNOW, with gnosticism meaning knowledge (knowing for sure) and agnosticism meaning a lack of knowledge (not sure).

I am in agreement with NoXion as to the faults of this claim. Furthermore, your own logic defeats you.

For in order to "know," one must have justification. Since there is no justification for any God of any sort, it is entirely impossible to know for sure that God exists - or, as you put, it is entirely impossible to be "gnostic" about religion. The only logical solution (given your arbitrary divide in terminology) is to be agnostic, but even this solution isn't entirely logical or rational.

For history has proven repeatedly the non-existence of Gods as culturally portrayed by various peoples - why would one believe that one specific God (with as little justification as all others) is actually real? There isn't any reason to do so.

Hence, given history, it would be rational to be an atheist.

- August

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

NoXion - search agnosticism and look at the wiki page, you'll find Huxley's definition there. There are other sites available, it definitely is not unique to me. Even if there was no such thing as a word "gnosticism", I'm still referring to total knowledge.

As for your second point, in logic, there is either an affirmation, or a negation of the claim that has the burden of proof, there is no middle ground. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

Again you either have an affirmation or a negation of gnosticism. If you are not gnostic (100% I know), then you are agnostic (100%> I don't know). Judging from your previous post, I think you are an agnostic atheist.


According to conventional epistemology (the study of knowledge), to "know" something requires three conditions:
1. Belief
2. Justification
3. Truth

So, according to this branch of philosophy, it is entirely necessary to 'believe' in order to 'know,' but impossible to 'know' without 'belief.'



I am in agreement with NoXion as to the faults of this claim. Furthermore, your own logic defeats you.

For in order to "know," one must have justification. Since there is no justification for any God of any sort, it is entirely impossible to know for sure that God exists - or, as you put, it is entirely impossible to be "gnostic" about religion. The only logical solution (given your arbitrary divide in terminology) is to be agnostic, but even this solution isn't entirely logical or rational.

For history has proven repeatedly the non-existence of Gods as culturally portrayed by various peoples - why would one believe that one specific God (with as little justification as all others) is actually real? There isn't any reason to do so.

Hence, given history, it would be rational to be an atheist.

- August

Correct, one cannot in reality (though he/she may claim otherwise) be gnostic. We are all agnostic because we do not know, though most of us atheists act as if we are gnostic, in the same way we act as if we were gnostic about the teapot.

I do not understand how you can conclude that agnosticism is irrational? Can you explain why?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I'd thought of adding a diagram to summarise my explanation:

[THEISM]=Atheism===================================>

Where theism is at 100% and atheism is at 99.99...% or less, though how you can have a partial belief in god(s) I don't know.

[GNOSTICISM]=Agnosticism============================>

Where gnosticism is at 100% and agnosticism is at 99.99...% or less, here you can actually have your own guess at the likelihood, though through the scientific method we can conclude that the likelihood is extremely small, like the teapot.

[Decolonize The Left]

Correct, one cannot in reality (though he/she may claim otherwise) be gnostic. We are all agnostic because we do not know, though most of us atheists act as if we are gnostic, in the same way we act as if we were gnostic about the teapot.

No. I "know" there is not a God in the same way that I "know" Christmas involves lots of people buying presents. Why? Because it's happened that way again, and again, and again, and again, etc...

I don't 'know' epistemologically speaking, but that's for rather absurd philosophical debate. We use the term "know" all the time; ex: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning." I don't know epistemologically speaking, but I still know.


I do not understand how you can conclude that agnosticism is irrational? Can you explain why?

Certainly: History.

How many Gods have been posited throughout history? Thousands, millions? How many turned out to be material phenomenon? Almost all of them.

The only god-story which still survives in mass belief is monotheism which attempts to stash god in the far corners of the unknown (before the big bang). Almost all forms of religious belief have been disproved through the explanation of 'religious phenomena' as material phenomena.

'Whoops! X wasn't actually a God. Sorry we killed thousands of 'heretics' for not believing our false beliefs.' <<< The story of religion.

Now, to be agnostic is to ignore this history. If I hit you with a hammer every morning, would you still wake up and say 'well, I don't know that he's going to hit me with a hammer...'? No. You'd prepare yourself and fight back, and that, of course, is atheism.

- August

[Kassad]

From the people I talk to, this is what I get. Agnostics believe that if there is a God or omnipotent deity, he is beyond human comprehension, so there's little point in attempting to understand him. They also claim that until there is scientific evidence to support such a belief, there is no reason to be concerned with it.

Atheists, like myself, believe that God or a deity is not felt, witnessed or expressed through inductive reasoning, then there is no reason why we should entrust our faith into it. Since the deity cannot be felt or expressed in a matter that we can comprehend with our five senses or through developed reasoning, there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Big difference.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

No. I "know" there is not a God in the same way that I "know" Christmas involves lots of people buying presents. Why? Because it's happened that way again, and again, and again, and again, etc...

I don't 'know' epistemologically speaking, but that's for rather absurd philosophical debate. We use the term "know" all the time; ex: "I know the sun will rise tomorrow morning." I don't know epistemologically speaking, but I still know.

You are arguing from a historical side, which is good, but I prefer the scientific side, I think i can apply it to theism with more confidence:

Faith - belief without evidence

As there is no evidence for the existence of god(s), belief in these god(s) is faith. Evidence is one of the most basic requirements for the scientific method, and therefore theism has not passed this method.

Science is not concerned with belief without evidence, as it can be used to believe in anything. Therefore we take the default view - atheism, as it is a lack of belief in god(s), in the same way we take the default view on the Celestial Teapot. Scientifically speaking I can't claim that god(s) and the teapot definitely do not exist (science isn't concerned with proving negatives either), yet the likelihood is extremely low, and though scientifically speaking I remain an agnostic, I do not say "God(s) might exist" or "Celestial Teapots might exist" or "[Object without evidence for existence] might exist", I say that I know that they don't exist.



Certainly: History.

How many Gods have been posited throughout history? Thousands, millions? How many turned out to be material phenomenon? Almost all of them.

The only god-story which still survives in mass belief is monotheism which attempts to stash god in the far corners of the unknown (before the big bang). Almost all forms of religious belief have been disproved through the explanation of 'religious phenomena' as material phenomena.

'Whoops! X wasn't actually a God. Sorry we killed thousands of 'heretics' for not believing our false beliefs.' <<< The story of religion.

Now, to be agnostic is to ignore this history. If I hit you with a hammer every morning, would you still wake up and say 'well, I don't know that he's going to hit me with a hammer...'? No. You'd prepare yourself and fight back, and that, of course, is atheism.

- AugustAgain, I am talking about agnosticism from the scientific method, however yes in practice we do not say "god(s) might exist", and therefore we are specifically agnostic atheists, though we generally refer to ourselves as atheists and that we know god(s) don't exist.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

From the people I talk to, this is what I get. Agnostics believe that if there is a God or omnipotent deity, he is beyond human comprehension, so there's little point in attempting to understand him. They also claim that until there is scientific evidence to support such a belief, there is no reason to be concerned with it.

Atheists, like myself, believe that God or a deity is not felt, witnessed or expressed through inductive reasoning, then there is no reason why we should entrust our faith into it. Since the deity cannot be felt or expressed in a matter that we can comprehend with our five senses or through developed reasoning, there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Big difference.

Your definition of atheism is perfect. However there is no requirement for those who are agnostic to believe that a possible deity is beyond human comprehension. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

The replies here are brilliant, thanks to those who have commented.

I am going to put my argument into one new post, as my first post wan't that clear:
Argument - That there is no middle ground between atheism and theism.

Definitions



Theism - Belief in god(s)
Atheism - Lack of belief in god(s)
Gnosticism - Complete knowledge
Agnosticism - Lack of complete knowledge, leaving the idea available that a god is provable through the scientific method in theory

Explanation

This is the spectrum that is incorrect:

Theism===============Agnosticism=================A theism

Atheism/theism addresses what you BELIEVE:

[THEISM]=Atheism=================================>

With theism at 100% belief and atheism at 99.9...% belief or less. "Belief in God" is a discrete variable, you cannot partially believe it does and partially believe it doesn't exist - like you can't partially believe that it is Saturday and partially believe that it isn't. Therefore Theism remains at 100% belief in god(s) and atheism is 0% belief in god(s). Simply - if you are not a theist, you are an atheist, yet what about those who are unsure? There is a different spectrum for that:

Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses how much you KNOW:

[GNOSTICISM]=Agnosticism==========================>

With gnosticism at 100% knowledge and agnosticism at 99.9...% knowledge or less. "Knowledge of god(s) existence" is a continuous variable, you can be confident, unsure, doubt it etc. Now take any two different variables and set up a similar system. You will find that no matter what percentages you have as settings, both variables can simultaneously have settings that work in theory. But what happens if you have a discrete variable?

Well if we set gnosticism/agnosticism to 100%, we cannot have 70% atheism and 30% theism, the middle ground just doesn't exist and they are incompatible!

That is why the idea of a "middle ground, I can't be sure either way" just doesn't work, all those that use that claim are atheists. Surprisingly, this is unique to the existence of god(s) question, do the public apply the same principle to the Celestial teapot? Another question is whether the percentages they choose on the agnosticism/gnosticism scale are scientifically correct, but that is a question we can consider later...

[Kassad]

Your definition of atheism is perfect. However there is no requirement for those who are agnostic to believe that a possible deity is beyond human comprehension. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Though it is not required, it is often believed by people claiming to be agnostics. I can't think of a more suitable term. Much like you and myself might both call ourselves 'communists', but I'm sure we have a multitude of disagreements when it comes to economics and social order. I don't see agnostics or atheists as any different.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who the fuck cares? Most people don't use a "spectrum" they simply use labels like "atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheist", "agnostic", "secular humanist", etc etc.

If someone said they were "75% atheist" I'd ask which parts of him were the theistic 25%. :laugh:

[Dean]

Who the fuck cares? Most people don't use a "spectrum" they simply use labels like "atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheist", "agnostic", "secular humanist", etc etc.

If someone said they were "75% atheist" I'd ask which parts of him were the theistic 25%. :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_atheism

Note the URL. The OP was arguing that "agnosticism" was not relevant in regards to theism/atheism. The fact is that "gnostic atheism" is "strong atheism." Of course the point is largely semantic, but it makes the point that those who use "agnosticism" as a compromise have no substance to their argument.

If you don't care, don't post about it.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Who the fuck cares? Most people don't use a "spectrum" they simply use labels like "atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheist", "agnostic", "secular humanist", etc etc.

If someone said they were "75% atheist" I'd ask which parts of him were the theistic 25%. :laugh:

Maybe those who consider themselves agnostics as a 50-50 between atheism and theism, and actually care about what they believe? That is why they would come here to read this in the first place? :rolleyes:

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Though it is not required, it is often believed by people claiming to be agnostics. I can't think of a more suitable term. Much like you and myself might both call ourselves 'communists', but I'm sure we have a multitude of disagreements when it comes to economics and social order. I don't see agnostics or atheists as any different.

But that is not the reason why they call themselves agnostic! If you cannot think of a more suitable term, that does not mean that it is automatically attached to agnosticism! We need to understand the definition they are using, why it is wrong, and apply the correct definition - that's all. I know, my argument makes use of definitions which the public may not use in practice, but an idea does not gain truth as it gains followers (a useful quote on religion and belief in general by Amanda Bloom). I use the correct definitions, not what people want the definitions to be.

[Revy]

If someone wants to be an agnostic and defines that as being separate from both theism and atheism, then they can do that. That is how the term is used, it exists as that kind of category.

Agnostic can be used as a modifier, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, etc. I don't think the use of the word "gnostic" is used in this subject.

There are many ways you can be an atheist. For example, you don't have to deny the existence of the metaphysical to be an atheist. You can be a pantheist, which many consider a form of atheism because it rejects a personal God - which defines much of mainstream theism.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

If someone wants to be an agnostic and defines that as being separate from both theism and atheism, then they can do that. That is how the term is used, it exists as that kind of category.


Theism - Belief in god(s)
Atheism - Lack of belief in god(s)

How can someone be separate from the discrete variable of "belief in a god"? If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.



Agnostic can be used as a modifier, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, etc. I don't think the use of the word "gnostic" is used in this subject.Go Wikipedia and type gnostic atheist, you will arrive at weak/strong atheism.



There are many ways you can be an atheist. For example, you don't have to deny the existence of the metaphysical to be an atheist.True, for example some atheistic religions. However those beliefs in the metaphysical have nothing to do with the person's atheism itself.



You can be a pantheist, which many consider a form of atheism because it rejects a personal God - which defines much of mainstream theism.Again, true, some equate "god" with nature, but I am talking about belief in god(s) through faith (belief without evidence), which is actually the category that the majority of pantheistic religions and beliefs fall under. The vast majority of pantheism is therefore a part of theism, and all other pantheistic beliefs can be considered atheism - because if you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

[EarthRevolt]

I think a large part of agnostics have some sort of support for secularism. An agnostic, I think, is much more likely to side with the atheist on issues rather than a Christian. Of course non-religious people have all types of moralities just as religious people do. I live in the USA, I have a USA-centered view of how agnostics and atheists are here, I know it's different elsewhere. Ultimately though I feel agnostics are on the secular side of things. It's alright if atheists wish to debate them but I would feel it was wrong for an atheist to dismiss an agnostic altogether.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I think a large part of agnostics have some sort of support for secularism. An agnostic, I think, is much more likely to side with the atheist on issues rather than a Christian. Of course non-religious people have all types of moralities just as religious people do. I live in the USA, I have a USA-centered view of how agnostics and atheists are here, I know it's different elsewhere. Ultimately though I feel agnostics are on the secular side of things. It's alright if atheists wish to debate them but I would feel it was wrong for an atheist to dismiss an agnostic altogether.

Secularism has nothing to do with theism/atheism and agnosticism/gnosticism. They are all separate things. You can have an atheist/theist debate on the belief (or lack of belief) in the existence of god(s), or an agnostic/gnostic debate on the knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the existence of god(s) and a debate on secularism. You cannot have a atheist/agnostic debate because they are completely separate subjects.

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. However if someone uses the word agnostic, then they are either an atheist or a theist, there is nothing else one can be. If an agnostic is not an agnostic theist, then he or she is an agnostic atheist.