Here's a discussion I had on Facebook in response to my entry, Calling yourself an atheist, particularly in response to how calling myself an atheist "doesn't mean I outright deny the existence of a god." Names have been changed to protect the insolent (not that any of you would actually think his real name is "Mr. Cuddles"):
Mr. Cuddles: Except that Atheism -IS- the belief that there is no God..
----------
Awesome Atheist Girl: "doesn't mean I outright deny the existence of a god" I took this to mean that you can live life on the assumption that there is not a god without believing firmly one way or the other. I think that's what Bud intended, but he'd have to clarify.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
----------
Bud Uzoras: Atheism isn't necessarily the belief that there is no god. It's simply not having a belief in god. I wouldn't say "there is no god" because I don't know. I simply have no reason to accept any god concept I've been presented with to date.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: That would be Agnosticism.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: Basically, Atheism is the belief that there is no God, whereas Agnosticism is the skepticism of whether or not there is a God.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: In a very broad sense.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."
----------
Bud Uzoras: Agnosticism = lack of knowledge. It says nothing about one's beliefs. Atheism = lack of (belief in) god. One can be an agnostic atheist (like myself), an agnostic theist (like a friend of mine is), or a gnostic atheist or theist (who think they *know* there is/isn't a god).
----------
Bud Uzoras: I don't know who you just quoted, but I recommend you broaden your research. It'll help you understand the concepts more clearly.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: Believe me, I studied Theology for a long time. Most of this is from my own knowledge, the quotes from Wikipedia, with significant reference material pertaining to the topics included.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: I understand the concepts very well, especially having considered myself an Atheist for many years.
----------
Bud Uzoras: Great! Then why the confusion?
----------
Mr. Cuddles: -I- am not the one who's confused ;)
----------
Bud Uzoras: You capitalize the words "atheism" and "agnosticism." Nuff said. ;-)
----------
Mr. Cuddles: Irrelevant. I capitalize a lot of words that don't necessarily need to be capitalized.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: You still think an agnostic and an atheist can be one in the same; 'nough said ;P
----------
Bud Uzoras You misunderstand. I said one can be both an agnostic and an atheist. Most atheists (including Richard Dawkins) are.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: No atheists are, as they are parallel to one another. And I didn't misunderstand. If you read my comment, you'll see it says you think they -can- be.
----------
Bud Uzoras: We can go back and forth like this all night long. Bottom line is this: "atheist" and "agnostic" are labels people use to describe themselves, and at times they'll use these labels to mean different things. Some atheists use the label to mean "I believe there is no god," whereas others use it to mean nothing more than "I lack a belief in a god(s)" without proffering a truth claim concerning god's existence. The former use of the "atheist" label aligns more with a gnostic atheism, whereas the latter use aligns more with an agnostic atheism.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: Well, if you won't take my word for it, how about the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic / http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
----------
Bud Uzoras: Great, a dictionary entry. Because dictionaries are infallible, exhaustive sources of information. This is why I encouraged you to broaden your research. Volumes have been written about the distinction and relationship between atheism and agnosticism. I'll point you again to Dawkins to start.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: Yeah, but Dawkins was wrong. He basically created his own definitions, as well as levels of Atheism, which never existed prior to his publications.
----------
Mr. Cuddles: And as I said earlier, I studied theology for quite some time; I don't need to do anymore research, nor do I feel that any further research is going to do anything but prove my side of the argument. And it's quite obviously clear that this argument is futile, as neither of us is going to budge. So with that, I bid you goodnight.
----------
Bud Uzoras: "I don't need to do anymore research..." And therein lies the heart of the problem, as well as the reason why this discussion lasted as long as it did.
Seems to me like you'd have to not read any atheist blogs, ignore the works of many of the best-known atheist thinkers and pretty much not have Internet access in order to miss all the discussion that's gone on concerning what atheism is. I still see this model expressed by a lot of folks on the 'net:
Atheism = "I am certain there is no god."
Agnosticism = "I am not certain whether there is or is not a god."
Theism = "I am certain there is a god."
Contrary to the model above, agnosticism is not the middle ground between atheism and theism. In fact, agnosticism has nothing to say explicitly about what one believes about god. All agnosticism deals with is what one thinks about knowledge. It's the category philosophers call epistemology: the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. An agnostic, then, is one who does not possess sufficient knowledge about god. Technically, a fideist is an agnostic, since such a person bases belief in god "on faith" rather than on knowledge or evidence.
Atheism and theism don't necessarily deal with epistemology as much as it relates to what one thinks about ontology. Whereas epistemology deals with what we know or can know about reality, ontology (listed among the branches of philosophy traditionally as "metaphysics") deals with reality itself. Put another way, ontology focuses on what reality is, and epistemology focuses on what we can know about what reality is. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. Atheism and theism are ontological positions. Without question, one can (and often does) affect the other.
Some atheists hold the positive belief that there is no god. These are called "strong" or "positive" atheists. Many who fall under this umbrella would be gnostic atheists (i.e., they believe they know god does not exist).
Most atheists are "weak" or "negative" atheists (neither of which is a derogatory term) insofar as they don't say "I know there is no god!" - i.e., they aren't gnostic atheists - they simply lack belief in any god(s). Many who fall under this umbrella are agnostic atheists: they don't know whether there's a god or not, and naturally they don't hold any belief in god because they don't have any reason to. They do not (as I said initially) outright deny the existence of a god.
Whether weak or strong, atheism is an ontological position in that an atheist lives her life according to her understanding of reality. If she has no reason to believe in any god(s), she won't view reality through a theistic lens. Perhaps her ontology is conditioned by her epistemology (which for many is precisely the case).
Likewise, theism can be either agnostic or gnostic in nature. An agnostic theist can be one who thinks god cannot be proved, and so takes it "on faith." A gnostic theist knows there's a god (and usually knows who's a sinner and who's going to hell, but that's a whole 'nother topic, gnome sayin'?).
I have tackled this before, so I'll offer a link to that entry: What is Atheism? If some of today's blog entry feels like a rerun, I apologize. Some people still aren't getting the message.
That said, there's a difference between technical definitions and cultural applications of labels. Technically, "atheist" just means "lack of belief in god(s)." Culturally, it's a label that carries certain baggage with it (and that baggage is different depending on the person who uses the label and the person who hears the label being used). I know some people who don't believe in god (who are a-theistic), yet they don't want to be known as "atheists" because they don't want to be lumped in with a particular group, or have people assume something about them that might not be true. They use the label "agnostic" because it's either less threatening or less explicit. I called myself an agnostic long before accepting the atheist label (and I still call myself an agnostic) because the crucial issue for me wasn't my lack of belief, but my lack of knowledge. I wanted to emphasize my epistemological stance foremost.
Like I said to Mr. Cuddles, "atheist" and "agnostic" are labels people use to describe themselves, and at times they'll use these labels to mean different things. And as I've said before, I don't really care whether someone is an atheist or not, or whether someone wants to use a label. We should be suspicious of labels. I don't care what people think nearly as much as why they think it. And if you want to know what someone thinks, don't just go by the label. Do something constructive, like, you know, talking to them.
— Dead-Logic
