All,
I received this comment in a previous post, and thought it might lead to clarifying a distinction about atheists and agnostics.
Here’s the note:
If you want to talk to atheists in Texas, go to Austin. Specifically the Atheist Community of Austin, and their cable access show “The Atheist Experience” or their podcast “The Non-Prophets”. (And no, they aren’t paying me to advertise.)
All I can say, and someone may already have said it, is that your definition of ‘atheist’ is wrong. All an atheist is is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.
Certainly someone who asserted that there absolutely was no god would fit the definition of an atheist. But the definition of atheist isn’t so specific as to apply only to those people.
Here’s my response:
morsecOde,
You are sort of making my point – it is about ‘belief’.
I think I’ve been fair in my postings [see My Favorite Conversation (ever) With an Atheist] about the distinctions in language on the term, but I’ll ponder the following critique:
There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do.
Now, with all that in mind, I suppose the question is what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? [http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm]
I’m thinking:
atheist = I don’t believe there is a god or gods [i.e. there is no God.]
agnostic = I don’t know if there is a god or gods [i.e. is there a God?]
My point is that, though many atheists believe they are atheists (which is fine, believe you are whatever you think you are), they are in fact agnostics.
So, what makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist?
Thanks,
Fred Lybrand
“So, what makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist?”
What makes you think they are mutually exclusive?
You point it out yourself. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.
I don’t know that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. But I don’t believe that he does. I don’t know that unicorns don’t exist, but I don’t believe in them either. And I don’t know absolutely whether or not a god exists. But I don’t believe in one due to the lack of evidence supporting said existence.
I’m an agnostic and an atheist. And I’m fine with that.
In his book THE GOD DELUSION, Richard Dawkins argues against T.H.Huxley’s Agnosticism. Dawkins claims that the existence or non-existence of God is a matter of probability. On page 73 he presents a “spectrum of probabilities,” ranging from #1, “Strong Theist” to #7 “Strong Atheist.” He places himself in #6 “Very low probability, but short of zero,” but leaning towards #7. If you’d like to see my comments on Dawkins’ book, check my posts “DAWKINS’ GOD DELUSION” 1-8 on my blog.
I am an agnostic about god and an atheist about the Christian god, “Yahweh”. That is why I call myself an agnostic atheist…
I like zebulonthered’s point…I am certainly an atheist about Zeus. So, it does seem to depend on the referent.
But being an atheist and an agnostic about the same god is problematical to me.
Here’s why:
There are agnostics who are NOT atheists…so…how can there be atheists who ARE agnostics?
A lot of this can be explained by understanding the nature of equivocation…where a term is used in a way that sounds the same, but really isn’t.
Ben Franklin’s “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately,” is an example as a kind of equivocation.
Fred Lybrand