Agnostics are Atheists

Aren't they?

There are two types of atheists.

1. Those who believe there are no gods

2. Those who don't hold any beliefs about the existence of any god.


Agnostics fall into the second category. They say that its impossible to know if theres a god. Therefore, they obviously hold no belief in god.

 

I do believe you are right.

Maybe calling myself an agnostic atheist is a bit redundant =P

 

I identify with both labels, but I am not militant nor do I try to persuade people as to the non-existence of a god. It`s more of a non-issue with me. I got better things to worry about, like girls with eye-liners, heels, nails and hair done.

 

I used to say that too..

Now I either just say atheist or agnostic, whatever I feel like saying at the time.

 

Yeah, me too as of now.
Thanks for enlightening me.

 

I believe the second definition fits the term 'nontheist'.

 

What about those who say' I dont know if there is a God'? Aren't they agnostic? They are not discounting that a God exists. The agnostic is willing to believe in a God with evidence to make an informed or educated decision.

 

No, they aren´t necessarily agnostic. You can admit to not knowing something without declaring it unknowable.

They´re not discounting that a god exists, but they don't hold any belief in a god, which would still make them an atheist.

Not sure I understand what you´re trying to say.

My understanding of agnosticism is that they don't hold any belief in god because of the lack of evidence to make an informed decision.

If enough evidence existed, and they decided that god either does or doesn´t exist, they would no longer be agnostic. They would either be an atheist or a theist.

 

NOT the same thing.

You can have an agnostic, or an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, or an atheist agnostic.

And they're quite distinct spiritual orientations.

 

can you explain the difference?


edit: I never said they were the same thing.

All agnostics are atheists

not all atheists are agnostics

 

An agnostic doesn't know what they believe, but it generally implies a assumption that there's probably a higher power.

An atheist BELIEVES there is no higher power, just like a christian BELIEVES that jesus christ died for their sins on the cross when god was feeling generous.

An agnostic athiest would believe there to be no god, but not be sure how, why, what, etc. (this might be a temporary orientation, while they figure themselves out. or they might stay this way a long time or their whole life, but be open to moving on to a more firm position if the evidence presents itself)

An atheist agnostic would not be sure what they believe, but assume there to be no god or traditional higher power.

I'm an atheist agnostic. The two last could be used interchangeably to some degree, but I would draw a distinction.

I mean, I identify with all of these on some level, and don't particularly resent being grouped with any, except in the case of rabid atheists equal to rabid christians. But I'd prefer atheist agnostic.

But yes, your original premise is false. Many agnostics DO believe in a higher power, or even are simply trying to pick between the abrahamic notions of a higher power, I know several of those who do identify as agnostic. It generally means undecided but heavily spiritual, which is why I personally prefer it with the "athiest" prefix. To show that I'm undecided, but do NOT expect a god to exist, and have no intention in selecting a single religion.

 

That label would fit my feelings the closest. Except to say, it`s not that I am not sure what I "believe"...

It`s more like belief does not enter the equation. I experience natural phenomena, and that`s all that I have experienced so far. Were I to experience supernatural powers one day, I would have to acknowledge their existence.

I am open to that possibility, but until then I am doubtful that I will ever experience such "higher powers".

------------------

And that is why my god is an onion. Onions are down-to-earth and good for my body; and if there is a god, I believe he would be down to earth and good for my body. :biggrin:

Does that make me an "eat-your-vegetables atheist agnostic"??

 

a theist, not theist, defining yourself by something you are not, stupid to me, pointless.

at least have a fucking label that fits... I choose agnostic because I simply think I don't fucking know, and then I pick that subcategory, Agnostic Theist. because I personally believe in a God but I don't know for sure... shiz.

 

Epicurus was a genuine badass:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

(can anyone attribute that one to him for sure? it is commonly listed as his, and I can't find it listed as someone elses, but no one seems to know exactly where it's from, or be able to cite a source)


THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF EPICURUS

1) "If God is perfect, He is always at peace and cannot become angry or upset at anyone or anything because only an imperfect being can be disturbed in these ways. Likewise, if God is perfect, He doesn’t need or want anything from anyone since if He did need or want anything, He would not be God but an unhappy and imperfect being. "

 

I'm an Atheist, I accept the preponderance of evidence that suggests God is so unlikely and illogical that his non-existence is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If I was Agnostic, I would have to pretend that I had no idea that consciousness was a complex biological function. This is medical and scientific common knowledge and our understanding of the brain and consciousness grows continually. Failing any other definition some people just say God is everything, an expanding universe of increasing entropy and random destruction can not be conscious on any level, or compatible with omniscience, or compatible with creationism and determinism, or fit any popular definitions of a God at all.

The odds that God is nothing more than a fantasy are staggeringly astronomical and beyond doubt!

 

Interesting. Atheist and neuro-scientist Sam Harris disagrees with you on the consciousness part. He explains in The End of Faith (p.208):

"Most scientists consider themselves physicalists; this means, among other things, that they believe that our mental and spiritual lives are wholly dependent upon the workings of our brain...But the truth is we simply do not know what happens after death...The idea that brains produce is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient either to prove or disprove it."

So do you have scientific sources to refute him? If not, are you ready to convert to agnosticism?

 

The vast majority of the worlds population are spiritually oriented, a creationist can go to school and become a brain surgeon. There's no limit to the amount of contradictory quotations you can mine from 'science and medicine' to suit your biased needs. So what! I'm supposed to convert to agnosticism because of a little misdirected ignorance? Physicalism is based on real facts, there is no faith in knowing that certain physical or chemical changes of the brain modify mental condition or 'spirit'. These are well documented mapped out medical brain consciousness functions. Faith is actually a belief in anything BEYOND physicalist observation. This quote is a contradiction so your buddy Sam is a little confused or biased by some ignorant religious tendencies that trump his common sense.

 

You made the claim:"This is medical and scientific common knowledge..." You haven't provided any scientific sources to back up your assertion. I provided the opinion of an expert in neuroscience--not just any expert, mind you, but Sam Harris, one of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheism". If he is "biased by ignorant religious tendencies", it would come as a shock to a large number of atheists who buy his books. You made a generalization about "scientific common knowledge" that seems to be refuted by your own statements which seem to deny that there is common knowledge on this subject. If you make assertions like this, you should be able to back them up with facts instead of rhetoric.

"Physicalism" isn't a fact; it's a paradigm or construct that once reigned supreme in science, but has been losing ground to "postmechanistic" paradigms in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as a result of such advances as relativity theory, quantum mechanics, and the physics of chaos. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn notes that scientists tenaciously cling to established paradigms until glaring absurdities make them untenable. I think the "facts" which you mention in support of physicalism are actually unfounded expectations based on a questionable paradigm. For further reading, check out Davies and Gribben, The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality.

 

I don't know what the fuck this guys talking about, sounds like he's saying our modern understanding of brain functions are mostly based on faith? I don't care if he's atheist or theists but that's just retarded! To say that science thinks consciousness is confined to the physical matter of the brain and then say this understanding is based on faith is a stupid contradiction. Unless I'm just not getting the context of this quote, it's fucking stupid, I'm not going to waste my time citing how much medical science has mapped brain functions and can modify personalities... this is fucking common knowledge shit.

Do you spend your day reading atheist literature to cherry pick discrepancies or what? I don't have time to check your refs or read this crap, I have a life so I don't give a fuck about your little minded quote trap, you win, you're more read up on atheism than I am... good for you. bravo, etc... etc... You have clearly PROVEN to me than consciousness is NOT a function of complex physical biology... by quoting an atheist using the F word (faith) in a context opened to interpretation... thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

 

My, my. Such an angry reaction from one so lacking in facts. The tone seems to be more sarcastic than humble, which might be a more appropriate sentiment. I don't think Harris would disagree that scientists can map brain functions. That's what he does for a living. But what he very clearly seems to be saying is that we don't have the phenomenon of consciousness figured out by doing so. I do spend a lot of days reading atheist and other literature as part of my learning process. I think reading and reflecting are essential before spouting off. Your comment that you don't have time to check references because you have a life to live is understandable, but if you can't take time to do that, I'd tone down the pontificating.