I've met many agnostics who weren't aware that there are different types of atheists, including many who don't know one way or another but lean toward disbelief, which is very close to agnosticism.
The typical misunderstanding of atheism from self-described agnostics is that atheists claim to be certain that there is no God. Some atheists do that, but that's not the only kind of atheism.
Another problem with agnosticism is agnostics seem to believe that one cannot assign any probability without perfect knowledge. Yet you do it every minute of every day, in ever decision you make. We live by probabilities and beliefs (and disbeliefs). I don't see why certain concepts in life should be off limits for assignment of probabilities.
"You're probably an atheist without realizing it."
You know, it infuriates me when my theist mother tells my atheist self that I'm probably a theist without realizing it. I won't take any of that "If you're a X, you're probably just a Y without realizing it" nonsense.
I think more to the point is that it's silly to define oneself in terms of the things that they don't believe in. I don't label myself an anti-Olympian because I don't believe in the Athenian gods. Socialists don't call themselves acapitalists. Atheism isn't a belief in something being true, it's a belief in other people being wrong.
"I think more to the point is that it's silly to define oneself in terms of the things that they don't believe in."
Well, I do believe there is no god. And theists define themselves as not believing in the absence of a god. I mean, I think your linguistic objections are pretty disingenious.
"Atheism isn't a belief in something being true, it's a belief in other people being wrong."
I believe it is true that there is no god. And I'm pretty sure theists have a belief that me and the other atheists (and those of religions other than theirs) are wrong.
What about an areductionist? Aplatonist? Afreudian? Arepublican?
I'm not saying that atheism doesn't exist. I'm saying that it's not the same as agnosticism. Agnostic isn't defined in terms of being anti-theist. It just doesn't really believe in the validity of the question.
It's like the classical, "Are you still beating your wife?" An agnostic doesn't think that the question is framed in an answerable way.
Atheism as a term seems to be more popular in the (much more religious than the rest of the west) US where it is perhaps a minority defining itself in terms of the majority. In places where being religious is the exception, rather than the rule, it seems less sensical for those who are not religious to define themselves in terms of not holding a belief that the minority hold.
As for the negations, do you believe that atheism would have a meaning if there were no theism? Or that there's any specific substance to the term atheism, other than (usually actively) rejecting the beliefs of theism?
If you look at the comments, they are largely free of flaming. Where disagreements did emerge, people are largely civil, much better than in other threads not even related to controversial topics.
I think this is a step towards HN being able to handle the topic maturely. Such a process is probably best done by not posting inflammatory articles. I tried to not make the poll inflammatory, though I forgot the agnostic option.
Agnosticism does fall under the broadest definition of atheism, nontheism, so it wasn't really incorrect. People just feel very strongly about their particular labels.
That's true. I think lst makes that point somewhere, and gets downvoted for it. What is your opinion of the poll, in terms of pushing the HN community towards being able to talk about such things well?
That's an unfortunate misunderstanding about atheists, unfortunately embraced by most atheists. It's like when they discovered they don't believe in a god anymore, any trace of evolution in their view of the universe just freezed. This is bullshit. I can easily call myself secular humanist, vaguely militant-atheist, zen-atheist (there's also zen-christians and zen-buddhists, don't worry), and I doubt very much I will die with the same labels.
People change, and people are different. Grouping the understanding of life of Einstein or Gates in the same category as every 15-year old who just rejected religion is a limitation I strongly hope we'll overcome in the coming years.
The reason why I cannot assign probabilities in this case is that the underlying concepts are too vague (particularly if you don't accept any one religion's terms) and there can be no empirical observations either. I guess doubting the feasibility of assigning probabilities here is exactly what makes me an agnosticist. Your argument is definately interesting though.
I am a strong agnostic... or strongly agnostic, I don't know what's the proper grammatical form. But I DO know strong agnosticism is what sums my own thoughts on god. :-)
(I don't get why you've been downmodded to -1, I have just +1'd you)
I believe lots of theists believe in God without believing in the possibility of an empirical truth. I've certainly met Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) who fall into this category. It would be silly to call them agnostics.
As another poster wrote, often times agnostics approach the question as one of knowledge, whereas most theists as well as "weak" atheists see it as a question of belief. We all (well, almost all) believe all sorts of things that we do not truly know.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. [...]
I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.
The shyness part is probably when people treat the question of belief in certain supernatural beeings as "special". Nobody is "agnostic" about their belief in the Tooth Fairy. They just plain don't believe in him (her?). Beeings from still living religions are treated differently since the issue is more sensitive.
I'm a 3D animator for my day job, I definitely believe in the teapot, I saw it in the Cornell box so I know it exists.
(apologies if this is way too much of an inside joke)
Sorry to correct you, but you're actually kind of shy (that is, not really determined):
You simply confirm that if 3 persons of human species are exposed to the same reality (yes, reality, because the impressions may be different, but the reality is well defined and precisely one):
So, if 3 persons of the same species are all concluding more or less different things, then you have the definite answer that none of them is seeing absolutely everything, that is: the whole reality:
So: you can't be God, because:
IfyouwereGod, youwouldknowit (together with the exact reality of all things...)
For whatever it's worth, I think your line of reasoning makes more sense. I see the difference between atheism and agnosticism as analogous to the difference between conclusiveness and inconclusiveness.
I don't agree with the "refuted yes" idea. In logic, "no" is not necessary equal to "not yes". For example, "not black" could be "white", but also "green". "God" does not have a well defined enough definition: it's very likely that God is not a bearded man on a cloud, but questions like whether omnipotence or omnipresence exist (and their correlations) are a whole new can of philosophical worms :)
He seems to be saying your thought experiment only shows reality is too complex to be viewed the same way by multiple people, and your claim assumes too much.
How about no? I don't say "maybe", I say it is impossible to prove or disprove. Frankly reducing it to a "yes or no" question is really reductive, and pretty much a christian way to put things, if you will. Q: "Do you believe in god?" A: "I cannot know whether a god exists or not."
If you say: "I cannot know whether a god exists or not.", you already say that you are not cause of yourself (otherwise you would know), and, consequently, there must be anothercauseoutsideyourself:
"another cause outside yourself" is not exactly the definition of "God." To believe that you did not bring yourself into being does not mean you believe in God, it means you're not a solipsist.
Also, would you please stop telling people what they believe? I don't think I'm the only person here who finds it to be rude. You can civilly argue a point without telling people that they're not really agnostics or whatever.
3) Negating behavior or comments - [...] Does he try to tell you what you are feeling or thinking? Or worse, tell you what you are not? Comments like "you don’t really mean that" are serious indicators of someone trying to negate you. A person who negates others is trying to take away the other person’s thoughts, feelings and needs and attempting to project his wants onto that person.
You are probably missing the point that agnosticism is about knowledge and not beliefs (sp?)... and frankly I am tired of keep on hearing people telling me I am an atheis, shy atheis or whatever -- so I am giving up.
You can't act against "logic" without hurting yourself. If you are a hacker (like me), you neverever can act against logic, otherwise your program won't work (and exactly the same happens with life itself).
