Talk:Agnostic atheism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This article is inconsistent with the article on atheism, specifically with regards to the distinction between negative and positive atheism -- an agnostic atheist need not be an agnostic positive atheist.

I tweaked the wording, how's it now? Bryan 03:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bill Mutz's text

Agnostic atheism can probably be given several definitions, depending upon how one defines agnosticism and atheism.

One proposed definition is a position that holds both atheism and agnosticism to be true. A person holding such a position does not believe that any God or gods exist, and also that it is impossible to prove or disprove this position.

A second possible definition is a position that takes the meanings of agnostic and atheist a little more literally, defining agnostic as "not knowing" and atheist as "don't believe in gods" or "don't follow any religion." Therefore, to say that one is an agnostic atheist would be to say, literally, that one chooses to disbelieve in gods or to be irreligious without making a knowlege claim. This is the sort of person who rejects religion for reasons other than tenability.

It should be noted that atheism and agnosticism are not as closely linked as one might think; it is possible for an agnostic to be a theist if one assumes that it's possible to be a theist without making a knowlege claim, for agnostic is a term which means, approximately, "not knowing." It is possible to attach agnostic to nearly any belief or supposition if one does not make a knowlege claim about it.

I don't see the distinction between the two definitions you propose. How does the latter take the definitions "more literally"? And in any case, where does "choosing not to believe" enter the picture?--RLent 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want some of that included, Bill, reword and restructure your text and don't use bold text that often. Since you're new, you should also work on removing ambiguity and informality. Proper sentence structure and grammar is appreciated. Adraeus 11:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is agnosticism and atheism the same?

In a sense being an agnostic is about choice. You choose the position, where you simply do not take a stand on being neither a theist nor an atheist. It is often put forth by atheists, that if you do not choose, then you are an atheist by default (absence of belief), but then a theist could justly argue, that you could as well be a theist, if you do not take a stand - you simply don't realize it. Now here comes the tricky part. If you choose not to take a stand on something, there is a time-dimension added (e.g. I have not taken a stand on whether I will go training, but I may - may not tomorrow). Now by choosing not to take a stand on the subject theism - atheism, I have not chosen not to be a theist, and yet mysteriously I am an atheist by default (abscence of belief). It would be as obscene as to believe that by choosing not to take a stand, I would have chosen not to be an atheist, and yet mysteriously I am a theist by default. If you choose not to take a stand you are either both by default, none by default, or you have the potential in time to be either. Some believe that subconsciously you can actually believe something, and yet it doesn't appear in your conscious mind, but if we keep to the conscious level, it does not make much sense to say, that you are both a theist and an atheist, so that leaves us with the point, that if you do choose not to take a stand on the subject of theism - atheism, then you are neither by default. What is left then? - agnosticism.

When it comes to agnostic atheism or agnostic theism it is merely forms of theism and atheism and thus not defining agnosticism. The form of agnosticism would be either theistic agnosticism or atheistic agnosticism - although I do rather like strong agnosticism vs weak agnosticism. However I do acknowledge that there doesn't seem to be a general consensus on the terms in speak. Rather it seems that different groups take the stance that best fits what they want to promote - be it theism or atheism. I am of the firm belief that the argumentation about theism - atheism and the possible choice of agnosticism as a middle stance is important when defining what theism - agnosticism - atheism is in reality. There is too much swearing on the frontline these days - I believe more in dialogue... (Jazzdrummers (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Okay, trying again

I am unhappy with the current text for various reasons. I will put in bold the parts that bother me most and will then propose revisions.

"Agnostic atheism is the position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods, and maintains that the existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable.(1)

Atheism and agnosticism are not necessarily synonymous(2) since it is possible for an agnostic person to be an atheist, a theist, or of the opinion that neither positions are true.(3)"

1. I think that it would be better not to use a single definition of agnosticism (the most hypocritical, I might add) when there is actually quite a perplexing number of meanings for word "agnostic," so I think that it would be for the best to include three of the meanings that are proposed in the article on agnosticism. An agnostic atheist may be an open agnostic, closed agnostic, or an apatheist.

2. The words are clearly not synonymous, lest the term "agnostic atheist" would be rendered invalid due to redundancy. I think that is would be better to explain in brief how they are distinct from each other.

3. This is mostly a stylistic complaint, but it also seems to imply that an agnostic who does not endorse either of the main positions on the existence/nonexistence of god(s) actually makes the (hypocritical imho) [knowledge] claim that the answer to the question is unknowable, so I think that it would be better to restrict the wording to indicate merely an absence of actual endorsement.

Here is my proposed revision:

"Agnostic atheism is the position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods, and either maintains that the existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable, denies the importance of whether or not it is knowable, or merely forbears making a claim of knowledge.

Atheism and agnosticism are distinct from each other in that Atheism is generally defined as a lacking of belief in god(s), and Agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowlege or any claim of knowlege, so it is possible for an agnostic person to be an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

Feel free to edit and tweak the proposed revision for grammer and suchlike. User:Bill Mutz

With a few grammatic tweaks, this is a nice revision. I like it. Here's a somewhat enhanced version:

---

Agnostic atheism is the philosophy that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Due to definitional variance, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods and by extension holds true one or more of these statements:

1. The existence and nonexistence of deities is absolutely or currently unknowable.
2. Knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant.
3. Abstention from claims of knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is optimal.

While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occassionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

---

As you said, feel free to edit and tweak for grammar, etc. By the way, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~! Adraeus 00:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, that's excellent. It addresses all of my complaints, and I find it much more readable. You might as well go ahead and put that in the article, but...now this is just me, but I think that "irrelevant" comes off sounding kinda bad to me. I think that a possible reason I'm getting this itch is that "irrelevant" seems too strong a word. I liked "unimportant" a bit better because the apatheist might say that it's unimportant but wouldn't neccessarily say that there is no connection. I'm mostly an abstentive agnostic atheist, but I can see how the apatheistic atheist would see the existence or nonexistence of god(s) as more of an object of interest than anything else but wouldn't actually think that the question totally lacks relevance. He might say in response to the whole atheist v. theist controversy, "I mostly find atheism more compatible with my way of looking at the world and better suited to my structural-functionalist views on morality, but you raise a very good question to which I would be interested in knowing the answer." You see what I mean? Bill Mutz 08:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deal. Adraeus 09:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another proposed modification

Okay, I'm going to try a few new ideas here:

Agnostic atheism adds a modifying term, agnostic, to atheism. "Atheism" will be given here the instrumental definition of the absence of belief or disbelief in transcendental beings or powers of any kind, chiefly God, gods, Buddhas, and Brahman. "Agnosticism" has many accepted and highly distinctive definitions, chief of which are denial of knowability, abstention from claims of knowlege, and apatheism. Given this, an "agnostic atheist" may be described, as any of the following:

1. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but believes that humanity lacks the means to adequately determine the veracity of this conclusion.
2. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but abstains from claiming to have the ability to adequately determine the veracity of this conclusion.
3. A person who does not believe in transcendental beings or powers but considers the veracity of this conclusion secondary or unimportant.

While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occassionally overlap, they are distinct because atheism is generally defined as a condition of being without theistic beliefs while agnosticism is usually defined as an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge); therefore, an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position.

Given the heated dispute over exactly what makes one an atheist, I think that the article would be more effective if the meaning used in it were posited as instrumental. The exact definition of atheism is not highly important to the article and mostly discusses what happens to it when "agnostic" is put in front of it. Also, I think that "veracity" is a cool word and happens to be particularly handy in this particular article. Lastly, I think that "transcendental beings or powers" should replace "God or gods" for the reason that Buddhas are certainly transcendental but do not, by definition, qualify as "gods" in the strictest sense of the word.

Questions, comments, suggestions, gripes, complaints, flames, and death threats are all very welcome. --Bill Mutz 07:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Emphasizing that agnostic is an adjective is redundant and unneeded. If a reader is unaware that agnostic is an adjective, I suggest that reader enroll in elementary English at an education center.
2. The second sentence is wordy and too specific. Save the types of deities for later in the article. A principle of good writing is to not use everything you have at once. KISS.
3. The third sentence is wordy and ambiguous. Denial of what? Abstention from claims of knowledge of what? I don't think knowability is a word either.
4. The fourth sentence is extremely wordy and questionably attributive. Despite its complexity, its attributive properties are simplistic and allows zero variation. "But" is also a terrible term to use in any commmunication unless your objective is to influence the reader or listener to forget what you just communicated.

• I reject the motion that we include the term "instrumental" for it is redundant and unneeded. All definitions are inherently instrumental.
• I reject the motion that we change "God or gods" to the much longer "transcendantal beings or powers" for the definition of "god" is "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force." We could, of course, use "deities"; however, if a reader does not acknowledge god's definitional variance, I'm uninterested in appeasing their intellectual arrogance or ignorance.
• You do have some good ideas but I think those ideas would be best implemented as extensions to the article instead of a modification to the introduction. The introduction should be generally applicable to the following explanation. For instance, when writing an essay you wouldn't make all your points in the introduction; otherwise, you would not have anything important or useful to say in the body. Adraeus 09:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now I am a bit embassed that I'm having to remind myself that I said in no mistakable terms that I was open to harsh criticism, but on reflection and upon closer analysis of your objections, I am glad that I did. However, I'd like to contest one of your objections. Buddha is certainly a transcendental being, and I doubt that there are many who would identify themselves as atheists or the same under different names would argue that the existence of Buddhas or anything in the nature of Nirvana are significantly more tenable than the existence of gods. However, Buddha, at least in most forms of Buddhism, certainly doesn't follow most accepted definitions of "god" or "deity," and neither, neccessarily, does Nirvana. If you do not think that I make a valid point here, I would be most appreciative if you would unburden me of my curiosity as to why. Thank you for being as candid as you have been with your objections, and note that I agree completely, mostly, or partially with all of them. Thank you very much for your criticism, and I thank you immensely for being considerate of my inexperience. --Bill Mutz 21:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition, I apologize for having apparently invented a new word. Please read "knowability" to mean "verifiability" which I have determined upon studying various dictionaries does happen to be a word. --Bill Mutz 21:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the Princeton University's WordNet, "Buddha" is defined as:

• Buddha, the Buddha, Siddhartha, Gautama, Gautama Siddhartha, Gautama Buddha -- (founder of Buddhism; worshipped as a god (c 563-483 BC))

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Buddha" is defined as:

• The title given by the adherents of one of the great Asiatic religions, thence called Buddhism, to the founder of their faith, Sakyamuni, Gautama, or Siddartha, who flourished in Northern India in the 5th century b.c. Sakyamuni is regarded as only the latest of a series of Buddhas or infallible religious teachers, which is hereafter to be continued indefinitely. When applied to Sakyamuni, Buddha is in English use treated as a proper name, and even when used in a general sense, it is always written with a capital B.

The OED also provides a some quotes:

• 1681 R. Knox Hist. Ceylon 18 The Buddou, a great god among them.
• 1853 Wayland Mem. Judson App. II. 410 A Buddh is a being who by virtue of certain austerities becomes the object of supreme adoration.

These definitions and quotes suggest that Buddha (or state of Buddha) is regarded as being a god among men, a living god or a man worshipped like a god.

Another definition of "god" provided by WordNet (the OED has similar, yet longer, definitions):

• god -- (a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men")

That, of course, is purely perceptual rather than existential and I think Buddha is irrelevant to this article. Although, some atheists, indeed some agnostic atheists, may be without belief in gods/God and without belief in godlike men. I think there are godlike men... because, well, I'm one of them! :) Adraeus 02:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that you may have missed my point. I don't think that I said anything about "god-like men." My main point was that atheists generally reject all things supernatural. This is to include ghosts, magic, afterlife, Nirvana, ley lines, and any similar nonsense, and I'd think that most are at least agnostic about such things as ESP, especially in regard to such foolishness as remote viewing, astral projection, and precognition. Bill Mutz 23:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Flint

I'm surprised that nobody has cited one of the oldest definitions of "agnostic atheism" - that of the influential theologian Robert Flint, back in the nineteenth-century. It establishes that the terminology was used in the literature nearly a century before the earliest of other references. I have therefore added Flint in order to give what seems to be a much needed historical depth to the article. I hope that's OK. --Dannyno 09:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Soft Athieism

I didn't think that Atheism was doubt about there being a God, I thought it was a belief that there isn't a God. To me, those are very different outlooks. In the sense of belief, belief in God, and belief that there isn't a God are both not possible for an Agnostic, who claims not to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.4.218 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. Never in the history of the universe has anyone actually had to know something in order to believe or in this case disbelieve. I do not have any knowledge that there is or is not a god and hence am an agnostic. However I have despite this made the choice not to believe. As such I am also an atheist. Hence agnostic atheism. It is just as possible for an agnostic to also be an atheist in the same sense that a ball can be both a sphere and green at the same time. Just as shape and color are two different things so is knowledge and disbelief. MAd HaTtEr2k (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing a merger of this page and Atheistic agnosticism, as they both outline exactly the same concepts, but with a different word order. I'm unsure as to what name the merged page should fall under, which is why I'm using merge and not mergefrom/to. Anyone who can definitively find which is the more accurate/widely-used term, please edit the pages. --Ω (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I always hear it referred to as "agnostic atheism" and as such prefer it be worded that way. MAd HaTtEr2k (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight change

"This is in contrast to atheists who claim knowledge that deities do not exist." I am changing this. This is untrue. Most atheist claim to lack "belief" in deities, it is incorrect to say they claim "knowledge" deities do not exist. Atheism only deals with belief, whereas gnosticism deal with knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Converse02 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the following:

• to atheists who claim knowledge that
• to atheists, who claim knowledge that

The former is the one in the article, but you are arguing against the latter. Ilkali (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I made changes. Basically:

Agnostic : Don't know

Atheist : Don't believe.

If you don't know and don't believe, you're an agnostic atheist. I don't think agnostic should be defined as someone who thinks God is "incapable" of proof. In the vernacular, agnostic means someone who doesn't know. My definition of agnostic atheism conflicts with quote by Robert Flint to an extent.

I have some problems with your version of the article.

• "Agnostic atheists maintain that since deities either lack proof or are incapable of it, they therefore should not be believed". This is not strictly true. Neither agnosticism nor atheism contend that anything should or should not be believed. A person that thinks humans should believe in deities, but somehow cannot do so himself, is still an atheist.
• You've replaced 'deity' with 'God(s)'. This is clumsy and ambiguous.
• You assume a definition of agnosticism ("agnostic means someone who doesn't know") that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's own agnosticism article and the sources it cites. I do not think this meaning is a dominant one - if nothing else, it would render the word mostly useless. Ilkali (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good points. "Neither agnosticism nor atheism contend that anything should or should not be believed."

What if we changed "they they therefore should not be believed," to "agnostic atheists therefore cannot believe for themselves," or something similar.

"You've replaced 'deity.'

I did this to mirror the term used in the agnostic theist entry. It uses God(s). I like the term better but won't mine changing it back to deities.

"You assume the definition of agnosticism...mean someone who doesn't know"

I agree to an extent. I using the more modern definition of agnostic, rather than the classic, as someone who is not committed, which is a result of not knowing, rather than someone who thinks God is incapable of being known. Gnosis = to know. The agnosticism entry does mention that agnostic can mean 'noncommittal' in the vernacular, something like mild agnosticism. The agnostic atheist entry does open with "asserts that there is no way to adequately or definitively *know* a deity exists," which is not much different from someone who doesn't know (the vernacular agnostic). I understand the classical definition as "incapable of knowing," but find this confusing and unnecessary. This is not how the word is used in modern times and not how Dawkins uses the word agnostic.Converse02 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"What if we changed "they they therefore should not be believed," to "agnostic atheists therefore cannot believe for themselves." I think we should avoid words like therefore (we can't assume that all agnostic atheists have the same motivation) and cannot. The most we can say is that these people do not believe.

"I did this to mirror the term used in the agnostic theist entry. It uses God(s)". Hm. Then that should probably be changed. These terms shouldn't be defined relative to God.

To clarify, the definition of agnosticism that I think we should be using is that an agnostic is someone who doesn't claim to know if deities exist. This is weak agnosticism, the bare minimum for somebody to call him/herself agnostic. The 'incapable of knowing' definition is strong agnosticism. I'll make some changes later, taking your points on board. Hopefully we can reach something we both agree with. Ilkali (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2