If You’re Agnostic, You’re Probably an Atheist

By Daniel Miessler on April 11th, 2009: Tagged as Atheism | Philosophy | Religion
  • Sam

    Yes, the definition you use “1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods” contains the “disbelief” part and therefore covers agnostics… but it also contains “denial”, and part 2 is wholly… doctrinal as to the the non-existence of God/gods.

    So, sure it covers me as an agnostic but why would I want to use it when it also covers what I'm not. In other words, the definition (you're using) of atheism is ambiguous as to whether you're talking about someone who claims God doesn't exist or someone who claims there is insufficient evidence of God for belief one way or another.

    So even if this definition is universally accepted and commonly known, it is still vaguer, more ambiguous than “Agnostic” and so I'll pass on using it to describe myself.

    In reality, there is another issue entirely, which is that this definition is NOT universally understood, and many people believe “Athiesm” to mean JUST the denial part. So for practical purposes, using the word to describe myself is actually even worse than stated above.

  • kevin

    Sam, you are simply pointing out the fact (which this post already made explicit) that if you are an atheist, you could be either an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, and you are not personally comfortable with people thinking that you might be of the gnostic variety. But simply saying that you are agnostic is equally problematic, because it doesn't say whether you are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

    You do have a valid point regarding the public misunderstanding of what atheism means, however. For that reason, my first response to questions of religious belief would probably be something like, “I don't believe in any gods,” and if there is an opportunity to take the conversation further, I would do my best to explain how that fits the definition of atheism.

  • kevin

    It is meaningless semantics. Both terms are just variations on a theme–that no evidence for god exists and in the absence of such evidence it makes no sense to believe in a god. Some people are just more adamant about their non belief than others.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Sam, you're claiming we should use agnostic because the term atheism is confused by believers. Well, so is agnosticism.

    When a believer asks you if you believe in God, and you say you're an agnostic, they think you mean, you kind of do, but you're not sure. And if you say you're an atheist they think you mean you are absolutely certain there is no god.

    Both are wrong.

    So let's not let their perception of the English language shape how we use it.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    My point is that we should be precise with language even if those we're talking to are lagging behind in understanding. We shouldn't dumb down our vocabulary, especially when so much subtlety is inherently involved, just to appease someone who's uneducated.

  • cooperati

    Ok, within the context of what you've written, fine, most agnostics are atheists.

    However, outside of this context, out in the the world, where pre-established context (and legal definitions) reign supreme, this doesn't hold water.

    So, until Dawkinsian Atheists hammer this oh-so-important, ciritical, lynch-pin understanding into the outside world, you'll find people who say they're agnostics aren't going to call themselves atheists.

    -=T=-

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Well, out there in that same world most people also don't know what an agnostic is either. As I said in a comment above, there's no reason to stop using language correctly just because most people are ignorant of how it should be used.

  • cooperati

    well, let's time it, then. i'm betting it's going to take a minimum of maybe, 20 years to turn society, including legal and government institutions, around to see things your particular and very specific way.

    This is a case of “Conversion By Proxy”. You know admitted agnostics aren't admitted atheists, and you seek to redefine the terms, as they are “incorrect”.

    Anyone want to be re-educated?

    I'm also betting that if your view becomes the popular one, that atheists and agnostics fall under newly accepted categories, you would find new terms for what people currently believe are agnostics and atheists.

    They now work under popular contexts. This is the mode they fall into. This is how humans work. Shuffling the concepts around only inhibits how they are accepted by humans, and can often outmode or render them obsolete by forcing the creation of new concepts that represent what the old ones used to be.

    (I'm curious if they did this during Soviet-era atheism.)

    -=T=-

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Perhaps I'd be fine with that if believers actually thought “agnosticism” meant what it does. But they don't. They think “agnosticism” means you don't know or don't care about religion, not that you lack belief because no evidence exists.

    If agnostics were making this point and solely wanting to differentiate themselves from strong atheists, I'd be fine with that. What I'm against is merely the use of the word agnostic to avoid making the statement that you don't believe.

  • john g

    Great post. My views on the subject have changed slightly since I posted the youtube video “Atheist vs. Agnostic.”

    I think I made some good points in the video, about communication in general, and why it is completely useless to refer to myself as agnostic in a location where the term is understand as “fencesitting wishy wash.”

    But the larger point, that atheist and agnostic are separate but related terms, defining completely different things, is critical, and one I didn't understand back then. I agree with your post 100%. I'm an agnostic atheist. But there is no point in mentioning that I am an agnostic if the question is “what religion are you?” – agnosticism is a useful description of my perspective on whether or not the existence of god is truly knowable. I am an agnostic. And I am an atheist.

  • cooperati

    well, let's time it, then. i'm betting it's going to take a minimum of maybe, 20 years to turn society, including legal and government institutions, around to see things your particular and very specific way.

    This is a case of “Conversion By Proxy”. You know admitted agnostics aren't admitted atheists, and you seek to redefine the terms, as they are “incorrect”.

    Anyone want to be re-educated?

    I'm also betting that if your view becomes the popular one, that atheists and agnostics fall under newly accepted categories, you would find new terms for what people currently believe are agnostics and atheists.

    They now work under popular contexts. This is the mode they fall into. This is how humans work. Shuffling the concepts around only inhibits how they are accepted by humans, and can often outmode or render them obsolete by forcing the creation of new concepts that represent what the old ones used to be.

    (I'm curious if they did this during Soviet-era atheism.)

    -=T=-

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Perhaps I'd be fine with that if believers actually thought “agnosticism” meant what it does. But they don't. They think “agnosticism” means you don't know or don't care about religion, not that you lack belief because no evidence exists.

    If agnostics were making this point and solely wanting to differentiate themselves from strong atheists, I'd be fine with that. What I'm against is merely the use of the word agnostic to avoid making the statement that you don't believe.

  • john g

    Great post. My views on the subject have changed slightly since I posted the youtube video “Atheist vs. Agnostic.”

    I think I made some good points in the video, about communication in general, and why it is completely useless to refer to myself as agnostic in a location where the term is understand as “fencesitting wishy wash.”

    But the larger point, that atheist and agnostic are separate but related terms, defining completely different things, is critical, and one I didn't understand back then. I agree with your post 100%. I'm an agnostic atheist. But there is no point in mentioning that I am an agnostic if the question is “what religion are you?” – agnosticism is a useful description of my perspective on whether or not the existence of god is truly knowable. I am an agnostic. And I am an atheist.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs