Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am An Agnostic Atheist

I often hear "what’s an agnostic atheist?", so perhaps I should first define the term.

First, let's split the world up into theists and atheists.
A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods
An atheist is someone who has no god or gods

Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic
Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something.
Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something
(Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)

So now we have four groups:
1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods.
2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘.
3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods.
4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them.
OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail

Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)

Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).

Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).

Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.

Most of the arguing about these matters comes from gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Both groups claim to have evidence and both groups endlessly debate that ‘evidence‘ with each other. In fact, there is no evidence, and neither group is able to support its claims. It's rare to meet a gnostic atheist, but gnostic theists are ubiquitous (fortunately it‘s quite easy to deal with them).

These days people are tending to eschew organised religion, so there are probably more agnostic theists around than there used to be. Agnostic theists often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘ and say that ‘there must be something‘, but without saying why there must be something.

As I said, agnostic atheists have an easy time of it (you’ll have worked out that I’m an agnostic atheist).
My position is ‘I have no gods‘. It is not possible to prove the existence of gods (otherwise we’d all be theists), and it is not possible to prove that gods do not exist (they might be lurking around some mountain-top somewhere). In any event, we have no need of them, so the whole argument is both unnecessary and pointless.

Whenever I tell a theist that I have no gods, they always react as if I had said ‘there are no gods‘ and they immediately insist that I prove my claim that the gods don't exist (i.e. they assume that I am a gnostic atheist). I patiently point out to them that I am not making such a claim, and that, in fact, I'm not making any claim whatsoever I'm simply saying that I have no gods. Usually, at this point, they’ll say something like ‘but you‘re saying that god doesn’t exist!‘. I then point out that isn't what I'm saying, that there's no proof that gods exist, and that there‘s no proof that gods don't exist, and as we have no need of them for anything, then I simply have no gods.

I usually summarise this as:
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, gods are unnecessary, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods

Of course, theists desperately need all atheists to be gnostic atheists so that they can demand proof that gods don't exist. Because agnostic atheists aren't making any such claim, theists are unable to divert attention away from the burden of proof for their own claim that gods exist. It’s astonishing how, even when you’ve clearly established that you‘re an agnostic atheist and you‘re therefore not making any claims, the theist will keep trying to argue as if you were a gnostic atheist.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@puck61 [quote]more evidence of God[/quote]

None of which is ever actually presented

[quote]God didn't meet you expectations[/quote]

I have no expectations of any unsupported postulation

[quote]your enviable faith in Him[/quote]

faith is merely pretending to know something that you do not really know.
I try to avoid such deceptive pretence.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Yes, fddlpej, it has always seemed to me that news items along the line of 'father of 3 dies while rescuing strangers from a burning house' address a level of sacrifice that, in comparison, make the whole 'Jesus sacrificed his life for you' claim seem trite and trivial.

Gnostic theists seem to have been backing off their claims that their magical entity is 'both omniscient and omnipotent', because it leads to difficult questions. For example, such an entity would not be able to change its mind (because it would already know that it would change its mind), But if it can't change its mind, then it's not omnipotent.
fddlpej · 61-69, M
Maybe the wrong place to ask this but if God is all powerful and all knowing then didn't he know that people would kill Jesus and that he would resurrect him so he didn't have to worry about death correct so what was the sacrifice?
So if a theist could prove that gods are necessary, he'd be making a more cogent argument. This is the basis of the Argument From Design, which seems to be the argument I run into most often now (maybe the churches are pushing it?).

The problems with it include that while it's possible to tell that a wristwatch is designed and a rock isn't by comparing them to each other, we can't do that with a supposedly designed universe because there's no "undesigned" universe to compare it to. Assuming that the universe is designed because some natural objects within it appear to be designed is a logical fallacy.

Another problem is that assuming arguendo that the universe was designed by a God, the concept for its design must have existed in that God's mind before he executed it (this is a tenet of Kabbalah, by the way). So the question arises, where did that design come from? Possiblities are, from a still greater designer who taught the creator God how to design and create things (i.e. Gnostic Christianity), or "it's one of God's attributes that he didn't need a teacher."

This last is merely a semantic stopsign, akin to saying "you must not ask that question." It's astonishing how many seemingly intelligent religious people, including philosophers, seem satisfied with this.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@LeopoldBloom Indeed. Not only does the postulation carry absolutely no explanatory power, it introduces a raft of risible complications, and there's no compelling necessity to make it in the first place
Carazaa · F
You wrote that an agnostic atheist has no need for a god. Ok But if you are agnostic atheist then maybe there is a little doubt about some things. So I just want to say that there is a story in the Bible that I'd like to share with you. I know you will say the Bible is just a man made story, but I wanted to share it with you. its a story how a man was mad at God for asking him to warn a city of it's own destruction. The man ran away from God because he didn't really want to warn anyone at all.

[b]Jonah’s Anger at the Lord’s Compassion for Jonah to warn a city of their destruction unless they repent.[/b]
4 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4 But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant[a] and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
Carazaa · F
@newjaninev2 Did you even read the story that I sent you?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Carazaa YOU DID NOT!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Carazaa [quote]the story that I sent you[/quote]

it seems to be an excerpt from a somewhat bizarre novel
frostyflower · 36-40, F
*lol
Your last paragraph is painfully true of far too many people we talk to on here. They aggressively approach the conversation "Where's YOUR proof?" and we just calmly sit here sipping our wine.
walabby · 61-69, M
G'day newjanivev2, I'm sure that we have chatted before. I pretty much agree with what you say. Would an agnostic atheist be some kind of a deist?
Science is starting to get on board with a higher level of energy supporting the universe. There's a lot now written about the "zero point field". Ultimately this will have philosophical implications...
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Umm... I [i]am[/i] a slowly deteriorating blob of meat and bone.

Consciousness makes all of [i]what[/i] happen?

Consciousness is an artefact of brain function... why should it be subject to special pleading?
walabby · 61-69, M
Perhaps brain function is an artefact of consciousness?? Is the horse pushing or pulling the cart?
Consciousness may make everything happen... ?
There are actually real scientific experiments that show that consciousness can effect physical things..
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project
These experiments have no shortage of skeptics, though...
lostcanadian · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2: [b]"Slowly !!!!"[/b] Wait until you are my age, it ain't so slow.
SlaveEt · 36-40, F
*sits back stunned* Wow. I'm impressed. I had never considered these terms nor this set of arguments before. I'm going to have to digest this one! lol
Lackwittyname · 51-55, M
Well I really enjoyed reading this and now no longer have to say I'm agnostic or atheist but the combo of the two. Thanks for sharing.
fddlpej · 61-69, M
I think what people believe is God is someone or something from another planet or something to do with time travel. If you showed up on earth at Jesus time with a flashlight and a gun you would be a god every one points to the sky when they speak of God and now women can have a surgery to become a virgin again think of what technology will be like in 100 years is that any crazier than an invisible being that loves us but let's the world have such horrific happenings go on
AlexPett · 26-30, M
there's no burden of proof. We are not asking for your approval. Call it a fairytale or whatever. It's the Creationists'faith in Something that they can't see or sense or comprehend. Atheists have faith in science the way we know it. Science has countless limits. You need to stop acting like Science has all the answers.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AlexPett [quote]strongly linked with sensory perception[/quote]

Yes, the physical universe
AlexPett · 26-30, M
@newjaninev2 then i can't explain faith to you.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AlexPett Which is why I explained it to you
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
There's a world of difference between necessity arising from personal preference, and compelling necessity arising from the realities of the world,
Chocolate vs food comes to mind.

I care not one whit whether or not theists feel provoked... it's not my role to indulge their fantasies.

What's surprising about this story is the lack of argument... maybe it's just the calm before the creationism?
SW-User
You've put a lot of reasoned thought into this and have expressed yourself well, but the four camps you outlined are not the four camps for possible beliefs and burden of proof is only one half of a proper onus system. These two major oversights throw your conclusions way off. I'm not at all surprised that people feel you are right about this, for your understanding is consistent with what was taught up until the mid twentieth century.

Within the modern, fairer, and more stringent understanding of onus the following things are so:

The agnostic atheist by affiliation to the gnostic atheist incurs basic onus to prove sole correctness and advantage.

The non-existence of God is proven when a belief adversarial to the existence of a magical plane satisfies its onus or onuses.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
I have not made any truth claims about the universe... burden of proof does not apply, nor have I reached any conclusions.

Additionally, I have not claimed advantage for either position.

"The non-existence of God is proven when a belief adversarial to the existence of a magical plane satisfies its onus or onuses"
Has this been done?
If not, please let me know when it happens. Until then...
SW-User
@newjaninev2: You presented your position well. My response was only to show that it's antiquated and contributes to our never really knowing. For implying that your view is oddly self-serving I apologize.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
No problem. In what way is it:
1. antiquated
2. self-serving?

While we're here... never really knowing what?
JakeShade · 61-69, M
This is a very reductionistic analysis which I find well structured and technically accurate.

As far as spirituality goes, I don't think the fundamental question really is about whether god or gods exist. I find people who use the idiom or metaphor of god/gods a little odd at times, but find that often the beliefs that come with it (creation, afterlife, unctions to goodness, etc.) to be highly utilitarian to them. To whit, it makes them better people. I find those who wear their atheism on their sleeve to often be cold and passionless, sometimes judgemental and dismissive. I tend to agree with *their* analysis of the specifics of the situation but somehow they let it take the richness out of their life (not all of them).

fortunately you seem to still admit plenty of wonder and richness into your life... good on ya for that!
Sharon · F
@JakeShade [quote] I find those who wear their atheism on their sleeve to often be cold and passionless, sometimes judgemental and dismissive. [/quote]
Interesting. That descriptions fits a lot of christians I know except they're [b]always[/b] judgemental and dismissive of anything non-christian. In their eyes, any other belief is evil and should be totally eradicated.
ISeeYou · M
Very good summary. You write brilliantly.
SW-User
Great post!
walabby · 61-69, M
@SW-User Hey Swannie, haven't seen you in ages!
I hope that all is well.. 😃
SW-User
[@Yeah it’s been a while! I’m ok thank you, how are you?
walabby · 61-69, M
@SW-User That's great!
I'm same as, here, which is pretty good... ;)
polysexminoh · 56-60, M
Thank you for this post!
robertsnj · 56-60, M
me too *high 5*
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
I used to describe myself as a militant agnostic ... which was a joke which no one got at all...

I like your agnostic atheist I'm in that category most probably.
frostyflower · 36-40, F
*Hugs!
You too Jani! The old crew is slowly trickling back in. It wouldn't be a home without such amazing intelligent people like you <3
Cinnamon · 31-35, F
There are plenty of gnostic atheists, by your definition, around on sites like this!

Also I note that you are in fact making a claim which seems designed to provoke theists: "gods are unnecessary". Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if people argue with you.

Gods aren't unnecessary to those of us who live with them, and even if they were, so what? They are here whether we need them or not! At least that's my experience... I have no interest in arguing about it. :)
Princessnadia · 56-60, F
in other words and this is my case i hve no "so called entity named god " i believe on ...
yu said what "goood" ????
the word agnosticism (french word)(alpha privatif) means that a human with a brain can not take as real things or issues or declarations or whatever not sientifically proved !
in the doubt (waiting for a scientifical evidence) "that simply does not exist or is not real" ....
religions of all kind hve always been created for poor brain people ....
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
Thank you very much for explaining the theist-atheist scale clearly and concisely.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Where did I say that?

I am, as I said, surprised by the lack of argument.
SW-User
I used to call myself a "militan agnostic" but noone ever got the gag... hey ho
Gforce1163 · 56-60, M
Thanks. This is very useful and well articulated. I'm also an agnostic atheist 🙂
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Frosty! It's sooooo nice to see you here, hun.
(hugs)
rottenrobi · 56-60, F
Simply awesome. Thank you!
GoodoldBob · 61-69, M
Even though I see things differently than you do I can respect yours as an intellectually honest position. So many gnostic athiests are even more evangelical than the Mormons who knock on doors. It is just nice to see a reasoned position - even though I disagree with it
Exquisite explanation. The only thing I'm confused about is that your term for agnostic atheist is what I once heard for being an atheist humanist. Did I receive wrong information then? Does it mean something else?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Are you perhaps thinking of the term 'secular humanist'?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Thank you, Robi
🙂
Cinnamon · 31-35, F
[quote]It’s astonishing how, even when you’ve clearly established that you‘re an agnostic atheist and you‘re therefore not making any claims, the theist will keep trying to argue as if you were a gnostic atheist.[/quote]
Cinnamon · 31-35, F
Well again you are saying (above) that you're not looking for arguments, but your language is provoking ("indulge their fantasies"). So I expect the arguments will come along.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
There are two simple yes/no questions, and everything else is just a discussion around that.

1. Do you have any gods?

2. Do you claim to know any specific details about those gods?
fddlpej · 61-69, M
Sorry doing this on my phone I hope I am clear how I present it if not I will try when I get home if you are interested
okaybut · 56-60, M
Your "religion" makes sense to me.
okaybut · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2: I would be curious to see how your view matches up to Philosophical Materialism or Pantheism.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
That'll be fun, but will have to wait until tomorrow... I need to be off to bed (it's nearly 4:30 on Wednesday morning here... fortunately, I can sleep late today!)
okaybut · 56-60, M
@newjaninev2: I feel guilty...let me look at it from the other side and give your brain a break. Back to work for me for now. Really enjoyed reading your stuff! Night.
hlpflwthat · M
I don't know. I don't need to know.

So liberating 😏
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hlpflwthat: Bliss?
hlpflwthat · M
As much as that first cup of morning coffee or the last sunset on vacation, yes. And certainly as blissful as Sunday morning in the pews.

I hope the brevity didn't put you off, because your post is a solid explanation of the spectrum, and I appreciate it.

I really don't need to know. I do know that I don't need gods to be a decent & considerate person. And I doubt - though I don't believe - that the human race, so bent on destruction & greed, so inconsiderate of the suffering they cause, could ever understand the intention(s) of the gods I have heard proposed ... let alone lay out that intent in 10 easy-to-remember edicts. Or 10,000 for that matter. Peace.
wannabecuckolded · 51-55, M
very well written and completely sums up all my thoughts. thank you
Cabernetfranc · 80-89, M
And also a philosopher...the mind boggles😯
lostcanadian · 70-79, M
Nice to see you here and Frosty as well. I miss EP
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
What parts are you struggling with, Sam?
SW-User
Wtf. So long passage. Going over my head.
okaybut · 56-60, M
I am a Panthiest.
JaggedLittlePill · 46-50, F
I am an Agnostic Atheist as well. Thank you so much for this and ALL of the science based posts...you are a sight for sore eyes to say the least.

 
Post Comment