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.
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.
56-60, F
