this post was submitted on
104 points (81% like it)
135 up votes 31 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,200,954 readers

1,081 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

Voice your opinion: Should we have a "text only" day once a week? vote or discuss

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

103
104

Some of you are forgetting this. Again: The difference between knowledge and belief. (imgur.com)

submitted ago by UnbelievableRose

all 65 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]pcbutler 3 points4 points ago

Technically even this is inaccurate. Displaying this as an x-y axis, atheist would be the zero point. You can not be 'more' atheist than another atheist, which this graphic displays. It should look more like a "T"

[–]chucktestlacoil 9 points10 points ago

False. I am the most atheist there is. Watch me perform this abortion using the shroud of turin as a bedsheet!

[–]Figgler 2 points3 points ago

If you read The God Delusion Richard Dawkins explains there are different levels of atheism and he makes a pretty strong argument for it.

[–]nightzirk 1 point2 points ago

Not really. He talks about there are different levels of conviction. A person who doesn't believe in gods but really isn't sure whether or not he's right is just as much of an atheist as a person who is absolutely sure that no god exists.

[–]FriendlyCommie 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, how can you not be more atheist than someone else? Please explain.

[–]DoubleRaptor 0 points1 point ago

To be atheist, you are of the opinion that god doesn't exist. To be more atheist, are you of the opinion that god doesn't exist, harder?

[–]FriendlyCommie 1 point2 points ago

Well, not to get down voted to hell, but the belief there is no God is still a belief, and you can believe there is no God more fervently than someone else. I mean, The Amazing Atheist is quite clearly more atheist than someone like charlieissocoollike, both in the fact he's much more militant and vocal about his beliefs, and in the fact he quite clearly more avidly believes in the conviction that there is no God.

Edit: just por la record, I just chose charlieissocoollike as I happen to know he is an atheist, but a very apatheist, non-militant one.

Edit (again): what if I reversed that? To be theist, you are of the opinion that God exists. To be more theist, you are of the opinion that God exists, harder? It might very well be the case that you also believe someone can't be more theist than someone else, but I just thought I'd point that out.

[–]DoubleRaptor 0 points1 point ago

It's a binary issue. Either x or not x. I would say you can't be more of a theist than someone else either. You might be more religious, or devote more time to archaic rituals, but you're still a theist. Potentially, a polytheist could be seen as more theist than someone else, as they believe more gods exist.

I am going to absolutely leave your first point alone, I'm sure if you spend any time on r/atheism you'll realise the difference between a theistic belief and the concept of atheism.

[–]FriendlyCommie 0 points1 point ago

Well, if we're just going on what we'd say, I'd say you can be more theist/atheist than some else. The same way someone can believe more avidly in any given thing. Based on what you're saying, no matter how much additional evidence a concept has to support it, people will either believe or disbelieve in it. A good example would be a communist believes more fervently in the idea of state intervention in the economy than a social democrat, even though they still both believe in it.

I have spent plenty of time on /r/atheism and I still stand by my assertion that the belief there is no God is a belief in the same respects as the belief that there is a God.

edit: however, I might add that the lack of belief in a God in itself is not a disbelief. It comes down to the difference between implicit and explicit atheism.

[–]DoubleRaptor 0 points1 point ago

You're getting the definitions of belief mixed up.

A communist may support the idea of state intervention in the economy, whereas a christian believes that god exists.

In the Batman film, the Dark Knight, it wasn't assumed that Harvey Dent was fictional and his supporters had to believe in him.

[–]FriendlyCommie 0 points1 point ago

You believe state intervention in the economy will work and be good for society. To support something, you have to believe in it. They had to believe he would be good for society (I have no idea what Harvey Dent does in the Dark Knight, but I assume something about politics). His more avid supporters believed more that he would be good for society than his donkey voter supporters.

[–]UnbelievableRose[S] 0 points1 point ago

The chart isn't claiming that "gnostic atheists" are more atheistic than "agnostic atheists", it's making an external comparison to strong atheism.

[–]Figgler 3 points4 points ago

Every time I try to explain this at /r/agnosticism I get downvoted to shit.

[–]misterfanwank 6 points7 points ago

That's because the chart's definition of "agnostic theist" is stupid as all hell and contradicts itself.

[–]Figgler 1 point2 points ago

I agree it was worded poorly. It should say "Accepts the possibility of fallaciousness."

[–]misterfanwank 2 points3 points ago

It should say "Admits to not having proof."

Either way it's not really agnosticism because it's choosing a position on a topic where no conclusion is demonstrable.

[–]SimianFriday 0 points1 point ago

More than just being worded poorly, it completely ignores the definition of the word "agnostic" which is simply somebody who asserts that it is impossible to say whether god exists or not because there is no proof of either. Saying you're agnostic but also believe a god exists is just saying you're stupid and don't understand the definition of agnostic.

[–]misterfanwank 2 points3 points ago

You still got the definition wrong because agnosticism applies to more than just religion, but as it applies to religion you are close. An agnostic does not need to assert anything. An agnostic merely does not accept indemonstrable claims.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

And the chart omits another possibility: Agnostics who are neither atheists nor theists.

  • Agnostic Atheist: Lacks belief in God. Isn't certain.
  • Agnostic Theist: Believes in God. Isn't certain.
  • Agnostic: Entirely uncertain of their stance on the existence of God, thus unable to claim that they believe or disbelieve.

[–]misterfanwank 0 points1 point ago

Wrong, dipshit. Agnostics are atheists because they do NOT believe in god. Not believing in god is the only requirement of atheism.

Similarly, "agnostic theism" is not a thing. You can't choose an indemonstrable position and still call yourself an agnostic. Agnostics do not choose indemonstrable positions.

[–]UnbelievableRose[S] 0 points1 point ago

He may be wrong but there's no need to call him a dipshit.

[–]misterfanwank 2 points3 points ago

"Agnostic Theist:

Believes a god exits.

Does not claim to know the belief is true."

This... This is just fucking silly.

[–]JonBanes 3 points4 points ago

And yet I have heard people say that they don't know if there is a god, but they choose to believe in one anyway.

[–]misterfanwank 0 points1 point ago

They are not agnostic because they are choosing a position on a topic where no position is demonstrable. Their reasons for choosing the position are irrelevant; they chose the position.

[–]JonBanes 3 points4 points ago

That ignores the definition of agnostic that is being used in this graph. Agnostic (as used by this graph) only deals with knowledge of and it is possible for someone to believe something in which they admit to having no knowledge. Many people believe in something for reasons other than logic or direct knowledge.

However flawed it is logically it is a position that real people hold.

[–]DoubleRaptor 0 points1 point ago

"As used by this graph" is the point. He's pointing out why a part of the graph is "fucking silly". Rationalising that by saying pointing out that the graph says it's so, therefore it must be so, sounds a lot like a certain type of circular reasoning that we all know far too well.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

I rationalized the definition by pointing out that there are real people that can be described as 'agnostic theists' via the definition, even if the graph uses strange wording.

This definition doesn't use the term 'agnostic' to mean 'undecided' as misterfanwank suggests it does:

They are not agnostic because they are choosing a position on a topic ...

I was trying to clear up exactly what the graph was saying. The reason I think it's reasonable to use this definition is, as stated before, that there are plenty of people who can be defined fairly well by that term.

I'm not commenting on how logically sound the idea of 'agnostic theist' is, I agree that it is a 'fucking silly' position to hold, but that doesn't mean that it just disappears.

[–]misterfanwank 0 points1 point ago

"I believe in god, but I acknowledge I do not have proof."

Yes, people do think that way. But they are not "agnostic theists." "Agnostic theism" is not a thing.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

They do not know (agnostic) but they believe (theist). This is using the definition of a/gnostic that the graph uses.

This defines agnostic as one who claims to not have knowledge of X while an gnostic has knowledge of X.

People typically don't go around calling themselves any of these things, this graph is used to try and parse out the differences and combinations of knowledge and belief. I find these definitions helpful when talking about these things and many people would fall under 'agnostic theist' using this it.

[–]misterfanwank 0 points1 point ago

Not knowing is not the signature aspect of agnosticism. Not accepting claims when they have not been demonstrated is the signature aspect of agnosticism.

"Agnostic theism" is not a thing because theism accepts a claim, that has not been demonstrated.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

I think that is empiricism, or perhaps skepticism. Agnosticism typically has to do with the fundamental 'knowability' of something (if it is knowable, knowability isn't a word, sorry).

Agnosticism is always about knowledge when it's formal definition is used. Some people might use a different colloquial definition, but this is a thread about definitions on a board dedicated to one philosophical idea, so I think the more formal ones should be used.

[–]misterfanwank 0 points1 point ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Specifically, read the Thomas Henry Huxley quote:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

He coined and defined the word. That is the definition of "agnosticism" and an agnostic person is someone, who follows the method of agnosticism.

"Agnostic theism" is not a thing because anyone, who is theist, has accepted a conclusion, that is not demonstrable.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

It's funny you should point to this article as it has an entry on agnostic theism. Someone doesn't have to think something is certain to believe it to be true. If that last statement sounds crazy and illogical it is because it is. I agree with you (and The Hux) that the idea of believing in something you admit to having no knowledge about is crazy, welcome to religion.

[–]Trioate 3 points4 points ago

  • Knowledge is any true, justified belief. Belief is a subset of knowledge, so it doesn't make sense to place it on an axis perpendicular to knowledge.

  • The inclusion of the words gnostic and agnostic, rather than certain and uncertain, is an attempt to integrate atheism and agnosticism. Agnostics typically will find this inconsiderate.

  • How does gnostic atheism even make sense?

[–]UnbelievableRose[S] 0 points1 point ago

I claim to have proof that the Christian god does not exist, so I'm a gnostic atheist on that front. But yeah, generally that stance is known as being an asshole.

[–]Trioate 0 points1 point ago

That's another thing. Because 'god' can mean virtually anything to anybody, it creates all these different theistic positions. I agree that a god possessing all the qualities outlined in the Bible and Christian belief is logically impossible, but it seems...inefficient to have differing positions of atheism with each god. It makes everyone infinitely every position.

[–]UnbelievableRose[S] 0 points1 point ago

Yep. I find it helpful to view non of this in terms of absolutes, because as soon as you find one, someone will come along and shatter it. Tomorrow I'm going to a talk by someone who claims he is both an atheist and a theist. You just can't categorize everybody using the same tool, it doesn't work.

[–]wedwabbit 1 point2 points ago

Ah yes - prescriptive linguistics - such a successful hobby ;)

[–]Kyrael 1 point2 points ago

My mother always criticizes me when I tell her I'm an agnostic atheist, saying that it's a contradiction; I am atheist because I do not believe that there is a god. I am agnostic because, if someone were to find proof of a god, I would be able to accept it, and I do not claim to know things for facts without proof. Maybe I should show her this.

[–]JackRawlinson 1 point2 points ago

No. Nobody is forgetting this because this goddamned shit gets posted about fourteen bastard times per fucking day. LEAVE IT.

[–]outlier_lynn 1 point2 points ago

Some of us are "forgetting" this? Really? We're these definitions and categories provided to you as the truth of the universe?

[–]DrWatson21 0 points1 point ago

What's the asterisk for?!?

[–]TheAgnosticAtheist 0 points1 point ago

For the text at the bottom of the image which is in a terribly selected colour.

[–]TheAgnosticAtheist 0 points1 point ago

I don't care how people use the word agnostic as long as they understand the different ways people use the word.

..And as long as they don't say "atheist agnostic". Atheist agnostic sounds like shit!

Say agnostic atheist ffs!!!

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

And you seem to be forgetting that there are people who are unsure about the existence of God. Those on the fence tend to call themselves "agnostics" because they know of no better word to describe that position.

This chart polarizes everything, leaving no room for the grey area. Most agnostics I know are neither atheists nor theists.

Agnostic Atheist: Lacks belief in any God. Isn't certain.

Agnostic Theist: Believes in God. Isn't certain.

Agnostic: Entirely uncertain of their stance on the existence of God, thus unable to claim that they believe or disbelieve.

[–]dj3ntal_drummer666 0 points1 point ago

Well just found out I'm an agnostic atheist! Thank you so much for clearing that up :)

[–]Typokun -1 points0 points ago

Oh, finally one that's accurate, have had some discussions earlier about this before because some keep confusing those differences.

[–]EdinMiami -1 points0 points ago

Maybe you should just stop trying to split hairs?

[–]JonBanes 3 points4 points ago

I don't think it/s splitting hairs to have an accurate definition. The difference between 'lack of belief' and 'belief of lack' is fairly fundamental to the worldview.

[–]svadhisthana 1 point2 points ago

I think it is splitting hairs. People typically use the word "agnostic" to describe those who are unsure as to whether they believe in God. The chart polarizes everything and leaves no room for the fence-sitters.

There are agnostics who are neither atheists nor theists.

Edit: I'm adding the following clarification to my other comments in this thread.

  • Agnostic Atheist: Lacks belief in God. Isn't certain.
  • Agnostic Theist: Believes in God. Isn't certain.
  • Agnostic: Entirely uncertain of their stance on the existence of God, thus unable to claim that they believe or disbelieve.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

It's either splitting hairs or polarizing, those two things you used to describe it are mutually exclusive.

I know that many people use the word 'agnostic' to mean either 'undecided' or 'apathetic' (and sometimes both) but I prefer this definition because I feel the words 'undecided' or 'apathetic' are more accurate.

I think the main problem here is that we often use words as labels in daily language as a short-cut, especially words that can end in -ism. When we start getting more in-depth in a conversation it becomes necessary to unpack and define terms specifically to be precise.

This chart shows how many people define those terms in such a conversation. I have no problem with these definitions because I think it is important to separate belief from knowledge in these discussions (where a/theism refers to belief and a/gnosticism refers to knowledge).

That being said, and using these definitions I'm fairly confident that the knowledge scale is a sliding scale as there are certain degree's of certainty, but I'm not convinced that there are degrees of belief, it feels binary.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

It's either splitting hairs or polarizing

I was using the terms to refer to different things. My apologies for being unclear and poorly wording my response.

I understand your points. But the fact remains that those who are undecided on the God issue overwhelmingly refer to themselves as "agnostics." So I think it's important to recognize that colloquial use, even if it's technically incorrect.

I'm not convinced that there are degrees of belief

This is the only part I disagree with. Surely one can be uncertain of what they believe about a particular issue and be somewhere between belief and disbelief.

Take the matter of extraterrestrial life. I neither believe nor disbelieve in it. I just don't know. There are reasons to believe extraterrestrial life exists, and there are reasons not to (lack of evidence being the most prominent).

If someone were to ask me, "Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?" I couldn't answer with a "yes" or "no." That, to me, is evidence that belief isn't black and white.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

To you're edit: By the definition you stated the "Agnostic" 'lacks a belief in god' b/c there is no belief.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

No, I stated that agnostic means uncertain of their belief in God. They neither believe nor disbelieve. I was clear about that, so I'm not sure why I need to repeat myself.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

The way atheism is being defined here (and I understand it's debatable) can be summed up by one question: "Do you believe in a deity?". Your hypothetical agnostic would answer 'no' as you have stated he does not believe and would qualify (under this definition) as an atheist.

I'm unconvinced there is any other answer to that question besides a yes or a no. You either have the belief or you don't.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

Your hypothetical agnostic would answer 'no'

My hypothetical agnostic would answer "I don't know." (Edit: I have several "agnostic" friends who fit my definition. So it's not hypothetical.)

You either have the belief or you don't.

I disagree. Let me copy a response from another of my comments:

Surely one can be uncertain of what they believe about a particular issue and be somewhere between belief and disbelief.

Take the matter of extraterrestrial life. I neither believe nor disbelieve in it. I just don't know. There are reasons to believe extraterrestrial life exists, and there are reasons not to (lack of evidence being the most prominent).

[–]JonBanes 1 point2 points ago

If you don't hold the idea to be true, that would make you, by the strict definition an atheist. Even if you hold it as potentially true but don't come down either way on the issue. A theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, an atheist is one who lacks that belief regardless of how likely or unlikely it might appear to them.

This is a semantic dance, i'll give you that, but I find it to be helpful when having these discussions to define the terms this way (except when talking to people who self-identify with the word "agnostic", ha!). Ultimately I think many of these type of disagreements boil down to how you parse out the ideas of knowledge, belief, certainty, etc. and I am by no means a keen linguistic or philosophical mind, so you might have the right of it.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

I think what's important here is to understand what people mean when they refer to themselves as "agnostics." Most are probably not using the term in its technically correct sense. But if our goal is to understand others, then I think colloquial use overrules formal definitions. It appears that "agnostic" has come to mean "undecided" in everyday use.

I suppose it's probably best just to ask them what they mean. And it may very well mean different things to different people. As you pointed out, words are slippery things.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

I agree with you about colloquial v. formal for the most part and when I talk casually about this subject I do try and avoid any label as they tend to bring more baggage than clarity.

But to be fair (to both of us) this is a thread specifically about the formal definitions, which is what the chart is trying to express and I think it does leave room for a nuanced 'fence-sitting' position, it just uses a different label than the one some people prefer.

[–]EdinMiami 0 points1 point ago

Whether you agree or not, it lacks relevance. The ongoing discussion here reminds me of the south park episode where the otters were arguing over which form of atheism was correct. Its just all a bit silly.

[–]JonBanes 0 points1 point ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about the definition of the word the sub-reddit revolves around. It's a word with a lot of baggage, and one that many people are unable to define at all. Yeah semantics can get tiring but it's necessary to have the definition clear before you continue to minimize confusion. This is /r/atheism, not an intergalactic time-war involving adorable sea mammals, i'd say it's extremely relevant. Or would you prefer a Facebook screen shot?

[–]EdinMiami 0 points1 point ago

By all means carry the standard then.

[–]shervmeister -2 points-1 points ago

Please stop this. All this seems to me is creating a schism in atheism; that's dumb. There should be no sects in a lack of religion.

[–]FriendlyCommie 3 points4 points ago

You are aware that there would still be the same schisms? There are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists as it is, applying a definition to them doesn't change anything.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 7200 on app-134 running 4424f18.