What Is An Agnostic Atheist?

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309749254' post='2262861']
I see, thanks for clarifying.

Would the 'true belief' that theists have be restriced to the individual? I ask this mainly because every religion has true believers yet not every religion cannot be true, at least in their particulars. Does this 'true belief' have to do more with purpose for existence more than anything as its underlying reason?

As you might've guessed, I'm more into the practical knowledge realm...
[/quote]

These are interesting questions... let me think about them a little bit more before giving a full response.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309763481' post='2262908']
Going along these lines is another argument with regards to what is the default position.

It seems reasonable to me that a person continues with their default position and requires evidence, proof or believe to move away from that default position.

I would argue that being a non believer in god is the default position given that I think we are all born as Atheists and that Theists are taught about gods and religion, and become Theists because they agree with the teachings.
[/quote]

This is also interesting. I'm not sure what the 'default position' is, to tell you the truth, although, from my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is the 'default'. My parents are not religious and never have been. Both my brother and I grew up in an atheistic household... God simply wasn't spoken of in the house. I remember as a child, as I was trying to fall asleep, that I would often try to think what life after death might be like... and all I could picture was never-ending darkness. I don't think I even knew that anybody believed in this idea named "God" until I was nearly ten years old. The same could certainly be said for my brother, who remains an atheist with the rest of my family.

I lived as though God did not exist, even though the question of God's existence never crossed my mind. When it finally did, I reaffirmed my 'non-belief' and came to 'own' my atheism.

Either way, I think my original premise still holds true... that, practically speaking, there is no true agnosticism. One lives, whether one knows it or not, as though God exists or does not exist.

I don't think it matters, though, whatever the 'default' might be. St. Thomas teaches that revelation was necessary to show God's existence because, without it, man would have much difficulty discovering God. He taught that human reason alone [i]could[/i] lead to God, but only by a few men, after a long time of searching, and with many errors. (See the first article of Q. I, I-II of the Summa)

Catholicism fits with this model. We believe that grace enables true faith, and that parents hand on their faith to their children. So, in many ways, yes- "theists become theists because they are taught about God and religion." Except I would add that theists become theists because they are handed on the gift of faith, from their parents, through baptism.

[stevil]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309766342' post='2262916']
This is also interesting. I'm not sure what the 'default position' is, to tell you the truth, although, from my own personal experience, I'm inclined to agree with you that atheism is the 'default'. My parents are not religious and never have been. Both my brother and I grew up in an atheistic household... God simply wasn't spoken of in the house. I remember as a child, as I was trying to fall asleep, that I would often try to think what life after death might be like... and all I could picture was never-ending darkness. I don't think I even knew that anybody believed in this idea named "God" until I was nearly ten years old. The same could certainly be said for my brother, who remains an atheist with the rest of my family.

I lived as though God did not exist, even though the question of God's existence never crossed my mind. When it finally did, I reaffirmed my 'non-belief' and came to 'own' my atheism.

Either way, I think my original premise still holds true... that, practically speaking, there is no true agnosticism. One lives, whether one knows it or not, as though God exists or does not exist.

I don't think it matters, though, whatever the 'default' might be. St. Thomas teaches that revelation was necessary to show God's existence because, without it, man would have much difficulty discovering God. He taught that human reason alone [i]could[/i] lead to God, but only by a few men, after a long time of searching, and with many errors. (See the first article of Q. I, I-II of the Summa)

Catholicism fits with this model. We believe that grace enables true faith, and that parents hand on their faith to their children. So, in many ways, yes- "theists become theists because they are taught about God and religion." Except I would add that theists become theists because they are handed on the gift of faith, from their parents, through baptism.
[/quote]
I am not sure what your expectation of a true agnostic would be.
I think xSilverPhinx was pretty clear in her articulation that agnosticism does not define whether a person believes in god or not. It is merely a position of whether there is knowldge of the existence or not. One could admit that there is no knowledge but that they still hold a belief that god exists. One could instead admit that there is no knowledge but that they hold a belief that there is no god. One could instead admit that there is no knowledge and hold that they neither believe that god exists nor believe that god does not exist.

For example, we could think about whether life on other planets exists.
Some people believe that there is life on other planets, some people believe that there isn't life on other planets, some people do not hold a belief either way (although these people might fit in the category of there probably is life or there probably is not life or they might sit completely in the middle and be totally unsure). But we are all agnostic with regards to not having knowledge of alien life.

With regards to gods I sit very much on the "there probably isn't a god" side of the scale, but I can't say for sure because I don't know for sure. With regards to life on other planets I would be on the "there probably is life on other planets" side of the scale, but again, I can't say for sure.
With this regard I do not pray to god, I do not follow scripture or church teachings as I don't have the belief required to do such things. My default position is that of an Atheist which is probably why I tend towards "there probably isn't a god". I am very comfortable not having a belief in an after life, and not having a fear of going to hell. Maybe there is an after life, maybe there is a hell. i just don't believe it at this stage and pascalls wager is not enough of a push for me.

Edited July 4, 2011 by stevil

[Brother Adam]

Paschal's Wager though is not a proof in a classic sense. It should be enough to force someone to explore further the idea of the supernatural, but would not convince any reasonable person to believe in God. If one relies solely on the physical sciences I can see why the position of "not knowing" would often come up as an answer for dealing with truth. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html"]The physical sciences though cannot answer all questions, and are not meant to[/url]. We also know how often scientific theory and fact changes. Oddly enough, the world is not flat. That is one of the things I love about being Catholic - unlike fundamentalists we do not fear science nor do we find a need to try to prove science wrong.

I do disagree that atheist is a default position. I have worked around enough children and shocked atheist parents whose children struggle for an answer to what they know is true without ever having any religious instruction. There is one famous conversation between a daughter and her atheist father. After a long explanation as to why there is no god the father asks her if she understands why we don't believe in "Jesus", a name she had not heard before. Her eyes lit up and she exclaimed "That's it! Jesus! That's God's name. I knew you were lying to me and that God is real but I didn't know his name." (The story is recounted fully in the book "The Religious Potential of a Child". We can know of God' existence through natural law and through the natural proofs. St. Thomas, which TB has been quoting is an excellent resource: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm. Dr. Meg Meeker, a pediatrician with no need to prove anything without religion in her text "Boys Should Be Boys" also talks about the built in sense for God children have and how it is necessary for their development.

If there must be a default position to an adult inquirer I believe the default position is "I do not know". We should not approach any new idea with a bias of either "this is true" or "this is false" or "this is good" or "this is bad". The default position of "there is no God" seems unreasonable, that too, we must be taught.

[img]http://discerningthetimes.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bigbang-m-51whirlpool-galaxy-core-cross1-300x218.jpg[/img]

[stevil]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309789177' post='2262962']
If there must be a default position to an adult inquirer I believe the default position is "I do not know". We should not approach any new idea with a bias of either "this is true" or "this is false" or "this is good" or "this is bad". The default position of "there is no God" seems unreasonable, that too, we must be taught.
[/quote]
"I do not know" would be an Agnostic viewpoint
"I do not believe" would be an Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know and I do not believe" would be an Agnostic Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is no god" would be an Agnostic strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I know that there is no god" would be a strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is a god" would be an Agnostic Theist viewpoint
"I know that there is a god" would be a Theist viewpoint

So in someways you could say the Agnostic label is beside the point. Alone it does not tell you whether a person is a Theist or Atheist, and with regards to Atheist it does not tell you if the person is a strong or weak Atheist.

If you are keen to distinguish an Atheist as being strong (I believe there is no god) or weak (I lack a belief in god) then I think you should know that there functionally is not a lot of difference. Neither of them pray, worship, love or fear god.
I guess the position of weak Atheist is that lacking belief is the default position and to move away from that requires proof to substantiate the god theory. These people put the burdon of proof onto the theory.
With a strong Atheist, I guess they don't care what the default position is because regardless, they accept that they have a belief (or knowledge) that there is no god.

But whether there currently is a belief of not, it doesn't really matter. If some conclusive proof does come to light then both the weak and strong Atheist will know that there is a god.

Edited July 5, 2011 by stevil

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309856400' post='2263207']
"I do not know" would be an Agnostic viewpoint
"I do not believe" would be an Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know and I do not believe" would be an Agnostic Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is no god" would be an Agnostic strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I know that there is no god" would be a strong, hard or positive Atheist viewpoint
"I do not know but I believe there is a god" would be an Agnostic Theist viewpoint
"I know that there is a god" would be a Theist viewpoint

So in someways you could say the Agnostic label is beside the point. Alone it does not tell you whether a person is a Theist or Atheist, and with regards to Atheist it does not tell you if the person is a strong or weak Atheist.

If you are keen to distinguish an Atheist as being strong (I believe there is no god) or weak (I lack a belief in god) then I think you should know that there functionally is not a lot of difference. Neither of them pray, worship, love or fear god.
I guess the position of weak Atheist is that lacking belief is the default position and to move away from that requires proof to substantiate the god theory. These people put the burdon of proof onto the theory.
With a strong Atheist, I guess they don't care what the default position is because regardless, they accept that they have a belief (or knowledge) that there is no god.

But whether there currently is a belief of not, it doesn't really matter. If some conclusive proof does come to light then both the weak and strong Atheist will know that there is a god.
[/quote]

Just to add:

An atheist can be a 'strong atheist' in relation to some versions of gods but not others since atheists don't have a starting belief in any gods, it really depends on the claims made by theists, deists and other people with beliefs in other types of gods.

For instance I have less reason to believe in (any) theistic god but less for deistic gods. The claims made by deists are simpler, not as contradictory or branched out in many differing opinions.

[Mr.Cat]

There are chiefly two dimensions I notice when regarding theism: knowledge and belief.

In regards to belief, atheism ranges from strong (claiming there is no divinity), weak (lack of a belief), and de facto (indifference). In regards to knowledge, agnosticism ranges from strong (claiming it is impossible to know divinity), de facto (indifference), and weak (admitting the possibility to know). Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

While argumentative, I have been told that Catholicism could classify as a weak theistic agnosticism, since it claims the possibility to know, but never clearly or extensively defines the "[i]how[/i]" or "[i]what[/i]" to know.

An objection brought up by christian apologists is that either one lives with consideration of god or not, which I personally consider psychological splitting and a false dichotomy. Since human behavior or attitude is not always consistent or manifest. It needlessly and inappropriately paints the situation either as "[i]yes[/i]" or "[i]no[/i]", in a discussion clarifying subtle distinctions.

I suppose I would compare it to a discussion on speciation of canines on phatmass, where another user said there was no distinction between a wolf and a dog, other than imaginary words invented by humans. While the story of "Balto" would surely be lost on this individual and I fear the subtle distinctions in life escape them, maybe that is how some theists comfort themselves.

[i]Temporarily visiting, thought I could contribute. Hope this helps someone. I have been avoiding Phatmass recently, I apologize if anyone misses me or deplores my presence.[/i]

Edited July 6, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[stevil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309742271' post='2262837']
As for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]ignosticism[/url]:
[/quote]
This ignosticism this is very true. I've never read a clear description of what a god is. A description that all gods could be judged against when trying to ascertain whether the creature is a god or not. A description that is devoid of a personality but essential to distinguishing the type rather than the individual.

We had a thread on the HAF once to try and describe a god, but we didn't suceed.
Some people thought it had to be the creator of the universe, but that only describes a past action rather than the creature itself.
I suggested that it had to have dominion over the Universe without necessarily having the burdon of creation. But again this is action oriented rather than type.
It is hard to describe type when it claims to have no material substance and hence no form, no constraints and no boundaries.

It actually seems to me that with regards to god we work backwards. We have the entity and simply call it god, so it defines what god means rather that the term god defining how we can recognise a god when we meet one. So really it seems to be in relation to which entity you are talking about. If YHWH then god because YHWH defines god, or if Zeus then god becaus Zeus defines god etc.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309942779' post='2263543']
This ignosticism this is very true. I've never read a clear description of what a god is. A description that all gods could be judged against when trying to ascertain whether the creature is a god or not. A description that is devoid of a personality but essential to distinguishing the type rather than the individual.

We had a thread on the HAF once to try and describe a god, but we didn't suceed.
Some people thought it had to be the creator of the universe, but that only describes a past action rather than the creature itself.
I suggested that it had to have dominion over the Universe without necessarily having the burdon of creation. But again this is action oriented rather than type.
It is hard to describe type when it claims to have no material substance and hence no form, no constraints and no boundaries.

It actually seems to me that with regards to god we work backwards. We have the entity and simply call it god, so it defines what god means rather that the term god defining how we can recognise a god when we meet one. So really it seems to be in relation to which entity you are talking about. If YHWH then god because YHWH defines god, or if Zeus then god becaus Zeus defines god etc.[/quote]

Ironically there's no clear meaningful sentence that would objectively describe what a god is and how it would be recognised without a shadow of doubt if we were to see it, other that some predefined characteristics that are attributed to something who some think is worthy of worship and at the same times satisfies intellectual and existential questions. God being the first cause is an example of this...another would be the cause for our consciousness. However I see these as god of the gaps arguments and not anything really real.

To me it also looks like the god concept switches to encompass many of these ideas going from existential to natural, it's like a "theory of everything", though one that's taken on faith because there's no evidence to support what can't even be adequately defined. Pure philosophy and you either accept it on its merits or you don't based on the lack of merits. The uncaused cause for instance: "god" [i]would have to be[/i] the non absurd conclusion to an otherwise absurd infinite regress, maybe because the cause for our existence couldn't be definition be absurd, but that doesn't really add any more insight into what "god" would have to be, other than just an uncaused cause. It's sort of meaningless and I don't see why an uncaused cause should be called "god" or have all the other characteristics attributed to it. I'm sure the theists here don't base how they see god on just that alone, but the same can be said for other ideas such as the soul, for instance. I think that believing in these things is impossible without faith because intellectually they just don't hold together. That's why I'm intrigued when people say that they [i]know[/i] that god exists.

The only "god" concept that I would agree on is "god" is the creative powers of the universe, because I have a special liking for pantheism, but I would see those creative powers (natural forces which allow complexity to evolve) as devoid of personality or conscious and capable intelligence, and that's where I part ways with theists who it seems have a similar view on that aspect (though the god concept is more complex for them and hold many more hypotheses). I wouldn't call it "god" though, because it's a loaded word, for clarity's sake. I [i]know[/i] that creative forces exist, because otherwise I wouldn't.

Edited July 6, 2011 by xSilverPhinx