Agnostic atheists

[jason.p]

How many professed atheists on here are actually "agnostic atheists", that is to say don't believe there are any "Gods" but don't rule out the possibility, how ever remote, that there may be? I've always regarded being agnostic as being a cop-out and sitting on the fence, but at the same time I like to think I keep an open mind. I know this probably comes down to semantics, but some people do like to categorise themselves and others to fit into groups of "like thinkers".

[DTCwordfan]

I agree with you there, joko. One must always be to open to discovery and the management of change.

I thought your avatar was simply a tree, vetuste, albeit a nicely shaped one, a Quercus rober.

[jason.p]

Joko. I hold by my opinion, childish or condescending as it may be. The belief or not in any deity to me is so fundamental that if you've considered it at all you would have come down on one side or another. Accepted that few atheists would reject any empirical evidence presented to change their belief, I feel that saying you're agnostic is dodging the issue.
(By the way at my age I should consider being called childish a compliment)

[naomi24]

joko, I don't see any bullying going on, and like LazyGun, I don't understand why you say declaring yourself an atheist is a bold claim that you cannot substantiate. If we're talking about the God of Abraham, which I presume we are, then I am an atheist, and I can substantiate my reasons for declaring myself to be such. Insofar as that God goes, apart from the evidence we have before us which does not support the claims made by the faithful, I agree completely with Vestute when he says "the Christian doctrine of vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice and the Christian/Muslim preachments about eternal punishment are two of the most disgusting products of human imagination."

Jason, //The belief or not in any deity to me is so fundamental that if you've considered it at all you would have come down on one side or another.//

Perhaps some people haven't considered the question as thoroughly as others, and therefore since they lack information, if they are honest they can only say they 'don't know'.

Most atheists will have no hesitation in telling you that on production of verifiable evidence, they would be prepared to change their minds.

[joko]

jason - my point is, if someone wants to dodge the issue, then so what? why must they make a choice?
why must people feel obliged to decide something so lacking in any evidence?

i would rather not claim to be firmly decided upon something that i simply cannot know.

naomi, i am not saying anyone is bullying here...i am talking in general... perhaps bullying is not the word i mean - i mean more the notion of being forced to decide, and the notion that unless you make a firm choice something is wrong with you.

i also did not say that merely saying you are an atheist is a bold claim - i said claiming to 'know' the definitive answers is bold and unsubstantiated - no matter firmly you believe one side or the other - it is still, and can only ever be, a belief -your belief...no amount of affirmations, claims, research and assertions can change that.

[jason.p]

Naomi //Perhaps some people haven't considered the question as thoroughly as others, and therefore since they lack information, if they are honest they can only say they 'don't know'.//
Point taken. I'd just like to think that once considered my premise would apply.

[Old_Geezer]

If they don't rule out the possibility of a Diety then they lack the faith to be an atheist. They may just claim to be one as the title 'atheist' has more kudos then 'agnostic', which sounds indecisive.

[naomi24]

joko, the evidence indicates that this God is not what his followers claim him to be and that can be substantiated, so I fail to understand how you equate that to 'belief'. It's neither a guess nor a preferred choice. It's there in black and white.

[LazyGun]

@joko for someone who "couldnt give two hoots" about an issue, you certainly seem to wish to keep contributing.

You still havent answered the question i asked of you...how is declaring yourself an atheist " a bold claim that you cannot substantiate"?

You keep insisting that you are not a believer in god - in fact, you declare that such a thing is ridiculous .To you then, atheism is too dogmatic, leaves no room for changing your mind if the evidence was presented?

But that is just your misunderstanding of atheism.Its the misunderstanding that theists like to use - that atheists are just as zealous as the most fundamental of those who fervently believe in god. A totally false mischaracterisation of course.

I think you have yourself tangled up in a semantic knot. And, by the by, I have seen no evidence here of bullying. Or is questioning someones statements or holding an alternative view to be considered bullying?

In fact, the only one i have seen offering a personal criticism is you, when you declare that someone holding a different opinion to your own is "childish".

[naomi24]

OG, No one can say definitively whether or nor a god exists, but atheists don't have faith. They require evidence.

[ABerrant]

Perhaps some have considered the question and deemed the answer as irrelevant...

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

[joko]

naomi - you either believe in god or you dont - there is no true 'evidence' either way... one is just more plausable and likely that the other.

lazygun - i suggest you read back on my past posts.... from your comments you clearly haven't.

i have addressed your question and the issue of bullying...

and believe me, i am in no knots either - its really quite simple - i do not believe in god because the whole idea, to me, seems ridiculous and implausable and something made up by people for a variety of reasons - but i would never claim that i know that for a fact - because again quite simply there is no proof either way.
whatever name you choose to give that opinion is up to you - it is immaterial and changes nothing.

and by childish i meant the idea of looking down on someone because they havent chosen a 'gang' yet and are therefore copping out, is indeed childish.

[LazyGun]

@Joko - yes it was a cross post - my last post crossed yours, so I didnt see it before posting.

So then = point me to where it has been stated that atheists know for a fact there is no god?

[joko]

lazygun - i did say it was stated anywhere...

the point is atheists dont believe in god. i dont believe in god.
but i dont claim it as fact. because i have no facts... just my belief - or lack of.

you really are trying to split hairs ... not sure what your point is.

[karenmac60]

I'm very open minded - about things that actually exist...

[LazyGun]

@Joko - Well, its semantics I guess. I just dont understand the need for the term agnostic. It must mean something to those who choose to label themselves as agnostic, otherwise they would be atheist, no?

So, it would appear that for some, the term atheist is too,- what? fundamentalist? Whereas as a point of fact, all the term atheist means is to have a non- belief in any deity. So, what is it about the term agnostic that is different?Why is it needed at all?

As best i can tell from the reference books, agnostics term themselves as such because on balance they don't think it likely that there is a god, they also believe it will be forever unknown, that we can never find the evidence - And I personally think this untrue.I think, in time, science will show that there is no room for a god.

I just dont think that the question of whether you believe in a god or not is a 3 state solution. Either you do, or you dont. To describe yourself as an agnostic to me does seem to be a kind of compromise cop - out. An attempt to say to theists that I disbelieve in god, but I do not want to be offensive about it. But why should theists be offended at meeting an atheist?

Thats why i think its a compromise, a fence- sitting option,an I-dont-want-to-offend-anyone option, and if you think thats a childish view, well thats your view, and we will have to agree to disagree.

[LazyGun]

@ Joko - And once again, and for the record - Atheists do not declare there is no god as fact - I still dont know where you have got that characterisation from.

[joko]

lazygun - and again - i didnt say they did... i said i do not.
some however do, and claim to 'know' without doubt...

but yes its just a term, and i agree a largely unnecessary one.

however i dont think people use it in order not to offend believers - that is not the perception i have when i hear it used...

rather to acknowledge that they are not 100% sure...that they have no hard and fast beliefs in god... but they are also unsure whether they 100% disbelieve.... that they have a lingering glimmer of belief that they cannot or will not dismiss.

but whether you term it a cop-out or whatever, the point i was making was not wanting to commit to something you are really not at all sure about - for whatever reason - is not a cop-out.

it woud be silly to just 'pick a side' just so no-one thought you were copping out. its all down to personal choice, and no-one should feel that HAVE to make a choice until they want to and are ready to.

[joko]

and i agree it is fence-sitting and 'compromising' somewhat...but my point is that there is nothing wrong with that at all.

[seadogg]

Several times I have claimed agnosticism here and have not been bullied. It may be possible to entertain the possibility of an intelligent agency behind the universe without accepting a personal god. How is this fence sitting or a cop out?