Atheists: How many of you are confusing the definition for Agnosticism for Atheism?

Question

An Agnostic says there is insufficient evidence to support the claim for a god or goddess. And Atheist argues there is definite evidence to support the belief gods and goddesses do not exist.

Knocking down one or two pantheons does not demonstrate that there is -no- god or goddess, only the ones knocked down.

Shall we use your logic and argue that you do not love because you cannot provide verifiable evidence that you feel love? Shall we use your logic and argue that you do not fear because you cannot provide verifiable evidence that you feel fear? Is there any reason to believe you are not simply interactive software programs because we do not have verifiable proof you exist as humans?

Using the 'lack of evidence' argument is not a very convincing one. How many of you have personally witnessed an atom, or an atom bomb going off? Shall we argue they do not exist either, because you cannot verify from personal experience their existence?

Answer 1

The term 'agnostic' was coined by Thomas Huxley and it refers to a person who holds the view that it is wrong to assert the truth of a proposition without logically satisfactory evidence.

So, an agnostic would say that it's wrong to say "God exists" or "No gods exist" without the argument or evidence to back it up. Moreover, the agnostic would say that it's immoral for a person to tell someone else that they *ought* to believe in the existence of a god or gods without providing logically satisfactory evidence.

A 'theist' is defined as someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods, so an atheist is anyone who is not a theist.

So you can be agnostic and also an atheist, or agnostic and a theist, or not agnostic and an atheist, or not agnostic and a theist.

Answer 2

"An Atheist argues there is definite evidence to support the belief gods and goddesses do not exist."

This is false. Atheists do not believe there is any evidence of any kind regarding any gods, for or against. They simply do not believe in god(s). Period. They see evidence for other ideas that are far more logical than a supreme being, but this evidence does not, in and of itself, disprove god. It merely proves something else. It is, in fact, not possible to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the proposer of the positive; in this case, that God exists.

Not having personal experience with evidence is not the same as evidence not existing. These are things we CAN observe, if we so choose.

As for love and fear, these are phenomena that do not "exist" in physical state. They are labels we have put to phenomena we have observed. Without those observations, there was nothing to label. As we have created the definition, we also dictate the outward signs that indicate love or fear. Those outward signs are your evidence. Indeed, love has a different definition for everyone. Thus, love is what we make it. Fear can be, too. These concepts are not the same as physical objects. Their "existence" cannot really be compared to the existence of a physical object.

Similarly with our own existence. We have defined what we know and experience as life as existence. By definition, I have to exist as the whole concept revolves around me having these certain experiences and perceptions. If that turned out to be all part of an interactive software program, then that would be existence.

Answer 3

Thats a pretty wordy question- I look at it this way: the idea that a "perfect" being would create everything with a thought and a few words, then inconsistantly give the most destructive species supreme rule over the entire planet- then restrict their behavior to the point of insanity... Seems a lot less probable than a chemical reaction that happens EVERY DAY in nature (yeah, I said that. The "spark" that created life is actually a natural occurance that still happens today- it can even be simulated in a lab). Hence the idea that science is closer to being on the right track than religion EVER will be.

does that make it agnosticism or atheism? I don't care.

I don't believe in god, in the possibility of a god, or in the superiority of world religions. That would contradict everything logical about life science and the way it works. Its too simple. That would be like us following the Illead as truth just because someone told us it was.

Answer 4

Good question and follow up. However I do take issue with you argument. I do not know of any atheist that argues that there is proof that God does not exist. Only that there is no proof that he does.

Love is not a logical or, in many times, a rational emotion.

Your next points make a different arguments. Because I do not how exactly how a cell phone, computer or an atom bomb works does not mean that I take it on "faith "that they do. Many people do not know how a car works. I do. Do they then have to believe that it is an act of God that it works? No, it is simple mechanics.

Logic and reproducible actions are one thing. Faith is another.
I am an atheist, but harbor no ill will to those who chose to believe in a higher being.

But I think it is important not to mix fact with faith.
Be well.

Answer 5

There is no proof that people love? Can't you observe someone loving someone else? Can't you see someone doing something for someone they love, defending them if they need to?
Can't you see someone run and scream away from danger when there is fear in them?
Ask an eighty-five year old woman in Japan if they believe in the atomic bomb, not me.
As for atoms, I see them every day, they are collectively around me, they make up a bigger picture called Earth.
Your "Matrix" theory about software programs just makes you sound like you worship Bill Gates instead of God.
Just because a book (bible) says things existed or happened doesn't necessarily make it so, maybe the stories are just that, stories, morals. Don't take them so literally, or do you believe that The Three Little Pigs existed also, it's a story, with morals.

Answer 6

So you're saying people should believe every claim for which there is no evidence for or against?

If I told you there was an invisible weightless squirrel with a magical felt-tip marker clinging to the back your head and writing all your thoughts on your brain would you believe me? What if I claimed that the only reason you don't believe me is that the squirrel won't let you?

BTW - there is ample statistical evidence against the existance of god or any supernatural force: Of the millions of phenomena, big and small, that we've been able to explain or determine a cause for, none of them have been caused by supernatural forces. None. And, to anticipate your reply, all of these explained phenomena were at one time unexplained.

And to answer your original question: no confusion here.

Answer 7

That's not true. Agnosticism is believing that there is insufficient evidence to support a god.

After this point you make the decision based on that lack of evidence to either be religious, and decide to believe in spite the lack of evidence. (which by the way is the position most religious people take) Or you can make the decision to believe there is no god, which is atheism.

We don't offer proff that there is no God, its impossible to prove something doesn't exist. We just say we choose not to believe, and we base that belief on rationality.

If no evidence can be brought forward to prove something may exist, why should we believe it exists.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts

Answer 8

I'm not, but as nondescript has already mentioned, you are.

"Atheist argues there is definite evidence to support the belief gods and goddesses do not exist."

This is only true for the strong atheist. The weak atheist simply doesn't believe in any god(s).

Atheism/theism has to do with belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Just like you can't sort of be pregnant, you can't sort of believe in god; you either do or you don't.

Answer 9

I'm not, but you are.

An agnostic is one who is a-gnostic. A gnostic is someone who thinks it is possible to have direct knowledge of the divine. An agnostic is someone who believes that knowledge of something divine is impossible. It has nothing to do with "insufficient evidence". Theists and atheists can be agnostics.

An atheist is just someone who lacks belief in the existence of any gods. Most people lack belief in the existence of all but one god, or just a few gods. But atheists lack belief in any god. We just haven't been convinced of the existence of any.

Now, there are "strong" and "weak" atheists. I think you are confusing "agnostic" with "weak atheist". A weak atheist makes no positive claim of gods not existing. They just aren't convinced there are any. A strong atheist not only is unconvinced of the existence of any gods, they also believe there is evidence that gods are just man-made concepts.

Personally, I'm both types of atheist. For those gods that are well-defined enough to present evidence against, such as the Christian god, there is much evidence of it being man-made and therefore not real. For the loose, "something out there", not well defined god, I'm a weak atheist. I'm not convinced there is any god "out there", because there is just no reason to think there is one. I tend not to believe things I have no reason to believe.

I hope this clears this up for you. Or are you going to keep foisting your semantic games and strawman arguments on us to tell us what we believe or don't believe?

Answer 10

I don't really care what theists refer to me as. I don't believe a god exists. Call that whatever you want. But my position is supported by just about every scientific fact we've ever discovered.

I can't prove that no god exists. But I can prove the god of Abraham is a bunch of dingo's kidneys. That should be enough to satisfy all the trouble-maker religions out there. And that's really the heart of the matter.

Anyone who believes in a higher power, that doesn't necessarily subscribe to any of the holy books' interpretation of him/her, is fine with me. They can believe the stars are pixies, for all I care. Just as long as that insane belief doesn't intrude upon rational decision-making, such as those made in politics, science, medicine, etc.

But the problem is, the major religions of the world claim to know the likes and dislikes of said deity, and are willing to kill and die for it. The fact that they are all quite different in their opinions, one would think, would clue them in that they're all full of it. But... the world is still full of ignorance. And that's why the atheists are finally starting to speak up. We're tired of watching people die over insane beliefs. And all it takes is education. Religion is a symptom of ignorance, nothing more.