CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This may be a little off topic I just wanted to mention it since you seem to be watching atheist videos. I would recommend steering clear of The "Amazing" Atheist. The guy is a total jackass with the maturity of a 2 year old and he just gives atheists a bad name. I'm not too crazy about Jaclyn Glenn either, but she is definitely better than The "Amazing" Atheist. There are so many other atheist YouTubers with better quality content. Here are just a few.
Yeah I Dislike the amazing atheist as well and thank you for the suggestions Ill make sure to watch them and If I like them Ill subscribe :). Oh and I love the atheist voice :D.
The majority of people get what you are saying. Usually theist and self-described agnostics, and yes the occassional self-described atheist. I guarantee you I will have more debates on the subject than you will. The fact is, there are different ways of looking at this topic. But as long as you try to pigeon-hole atheists as "people who believe there is no God", you will get contention.
And I want to clarify that I don't neccesarily think the other view is factually "wrong", but I do feel that it doesn't properly represent the actual spectrum of people out there, or what agnosticism should really be used to describe. I think my stance makes more sense to me. But at the end of the day it is a philosophical position that may not really have a "right or wrong". I do get a little more antagonistic against it though, because people might hear me describe myself as an atheist and make conclusions about me that I did not proclaim.
Its like how some Christians take the Bible literally and some don't. I won't use the same arguments on one that I would on another.
She's spending most of that on attacking the claim that ALL atheists are agnostics and vice versa. That is not a claim that I side with. I do argue that many, probably most, atheists are also agnostic, but there are also agnostic theists and gnostic atheists as well. I wouldn't make the argument that they are equivalent, rather that they are two different spectra that may or may not overlap depending on the individual.
For me, I feel like I identify with all atheists more than any theist. However, I don't really agree with gnostic atheists. I conduct my life as if there is no God and can argue against any theistic claim just as vehemently as a gnostic athiest, but the truth is, I don't agree with arguments that PROVE god does not exist any more than those that claim to prove that he does.
In your opinion, do you think that agnosticism can not be an individual group? Like, does it have to be either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, or can there just be agnostic?
In my view that would be like asking if a person can be "just straight" instead of a "straight male". The can identify how they want, and certain identifiers are more appropriate in certain conversations than others. After all, they are covering two different topics that are not mutually exclusive. And that is how I view the relationship between atheist and agnostic. That is, just as someone will have a sexual preference and a gender at all times, so too will a person have both a stance on knowledge AND on belief.
I can't say for sure. I'm not him. I'm not sure if I would agree with him on a philosophical level. I can envision a theory or two, but its better to let his writings speak for themselves. I just state things from the perspective that makes more sense to me and some others.
But the term was coined with the intention of it being a third alternative. You think that the term should be interpreted different from it's original purpose?
Yes, because I feel the original purpose was ill-advised philosophically. It DOES highlight the need for something more than a purely binary system, but to me, using "agnostic" as a middle ground is sloppy and not terribly useful.
You do not think that the meaning of the term atheism took on a different meaning from it's original intent?
I think whenever people have used it to define those who actively deny the existence of God, they have used a too constrictive and incomplete definition of the word.
I think a "maybe" option is useful when asking an opinion based question like, "does God exist?"
Except that the question can be interpreted in different ways. Are asking if I know or if I believe?
I think whenever people have used it to define those who actively deny the existence of God, they have used a too constrictive and incomplete definition of the word.
So, you think that the word is still true to it's original meaning?
Except that the question can be interpreted in different ways. Are asking if I know or if I believe?
Belief is in there by default, because nobody actually knows, but they have confidence that the answer is either yes or no... And those who do not have confidence in either position, settle with "maybe."
It was originally used as a pejorative. An insult. So no, I don't hold much to it.
It populist definition has always been one that is linguistically acceptable in common use, but I don't think it is entirely accurate.
Belief is in there by default, because nobody actually knows,
Yeah, but not everyone is going to agree with that. That has an effect on their stance, presentation, and on which arguments are better suited to use on them.
And those who do not have confidence in either position, settle with "maybe."
Which means they don't believe in God. An atheist position.
It was originally used as a pejorative. An insult. So no, I don't hold much to it.
I assume that has a lot to do with the fact that most people felt certain that deities exist.
Which means they don't believe in God. An atheist position.
That is where I disagree. I think it should be thought of as: "Does God exist?"
Theism: Yes
Atheism: No
Agnosticism: Maybe
Let's go with the more traditional interpretation of agnosticism...
Agnosticism- "view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists"
So, agnosticism means more than just the "lack of knowledge." It is the assertion that God's existence can not be proven, as opposed to the position that it can. So, in that sense, I guess gnostic atheists would be the ones who assert that God's non-existence is provable, where as agnostic atheists would be those who believe that God does not exist, but that cannot be proven. The "a" in agnosticism means more than just simply "without," as many say is the case with atheism. It is actually the complete opposite and denial that knowledge can be acquired (gnostic).
The only alternative definition to agnosticism is: "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic"
Why does the "a" in atheist imply simply "the lack of," when that is not the case with agnosticism?
That is where I disagree. I think it should be thought of as: "Does God exist?"
Yes, I know you think that. I've already explained that I consider that question insufficient.
Let's go with the more traditional interpretation of agnosticism...
Agnosticism- "view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists"
That is also a far too restrictive definition, just like how you use atheist. By simplifying definitions and categorizing in pairs, then using those pairs to influence each other, you get a full spectrum.
In fact your usage of both words completely removes me from ANY descriptor. I am definitely not a theist. But apparently not an atheist either since I don't claim that God definitely does not exist. And I don't even get to be agnostic because I don't claim that such knowledge is definitely unknowable. So, I cannot describe my position. This is why the hyper-specific and oppositional definitions aren't useful for many people.
Or you can ask me: 1. Do you believe in God? No. Do you claim knowldege that God does not exist? No. Agnostic Atheist. Simple.
Yes, I know you think that. I've already explained that I consider that question insufficient.
It is the responses that come after the question which are of more importance.
That is also a far too restrictive definition
The last time you said that you gave me several definitions saying the same thing, but using different words.
I am definitely not a theist. But apparently not an atheist either since I don't claim that God definitely does not exist.
Ah, I'm glad you are starting to understand ;)
And I don't even get to be agnostic because I don't claim that such knowledge is definitely unknowable.
Well, I also supplied the alternative of the definition, as it was introduced by Huxley... But you disagree with his take on it, right?
So, I cannot describe my position.
Sure you can... "I do not believe in God, nor do I believe that God does not exist." I realize a label is simpler, though. So, Huxley's agnosticism seems to fit your view.
Or you can ask me: 1. Do you believe in God? No. Do you claim knowldege that God does not exist? No. Agnostic Atheist. Simple.
It could be made so much simpler with Huxley's agnosticism:
Too simple. Granted, my four-part system is ALSO not quite all inclusive. But it is a good platform from which to ask further questions.
Besides, while simplifying groups does have its advantage, going to TOO simple can be downright insulting. Neither people nor philosophical concepts tend to be simple.
Agnostic- I do not believe one way or the other.
But I also don't believe in God. I combat theistic claims much as your definition of atheist would. I do not fear retribution or judgement. I do not view things spiritually. In many ways, I operate as though God definitely does not exist, although I do not make such a claim. This isn't indecision. This is the fact that I haven't seen solid evidence for his existence (which I personally believe should be extant prior to the formation of positive belief.), combined with intellectual honesty (can't claim to have a trick that proves he doesn't exist, but then, if he doesn't, I wouldn't need one).
Basically it is a specific type of thought process. Running through specific yes/no questions. It makes sense to me. Indeed, I can't see how your system is remotely satisfactory for a complicated subject.
Too simple. Granted, my four-part system is ALSO not quite all inclusive. But it is a good platform from which to ask further questions.
Too simple? It does not cover all that needs to be covered? Do people really need to claim whether they do or do not know that which is unknown?
Besides, while simplifying groups does have its advantage, going to TOO simple can be downright insulting. Neither people nor philosophical concepts tend to be simple.
Give me an example of how the three-part system is insulting.
But I also don't believe in God.
That's what I said, though. "Agnostic- I do not believe one way or the other." Or are you saying that you believe God does not exist?
I combat theistic claims much as your definition of atheist would. I do not fear retribution or judgement. I do not view things spiritually. In many ways, I operate as though God definitely does not exist, although I do not make such a claim.
It sounds like you believe God does not exist. Then you definitely would be an atheist.
Basically it is a specific type of thought process. Running through specific yes/no questions. It makes sense to me. Indeed, I can't see how your system is remotely satisfactory for a complicated subject.
It really isn't that complicated. People just make it more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm not going to respond to all of these points because I already have, sometimes more than once. It gets old and frustrating.
Do people really need to claim whether they do or do not know that which is unknown?
Talk to a fundamentalist Biblical Literalist. Or possibly some strong atheists. These people do not believe that such a thing is unknown. Therefore, that has a profound impact on how they approach the issue.
Give me an example of how the three-part system is insulting.
That was more a potential scenario with hyper-simplifying people and their beliefs. That said, if one presents oneself as either atheist OR agnostic in the populist system certain stereotypes emerge. An agnostic has commitment issues, or an atheist hates Christians. But if we stick with simple, mathematical characteristics, we could at least try to avoid this.
I'm not going to respond to all of these points because I already have, sometimes more than once. It gets old and frustrating.
Like which ones?
Talk to a fundamentalist Biblical Literalist. Or possibly some strong atheists. These people do not believe that such a thing is unknown. Therefore, that has a profound impact on how they approach the issue.
So what? The fact of the matter is that they don't know.
That said, if one presents oneself as either atheist OR agnostic in the populist system certain stereotypes emerge. An agnostic has commitment issues, or an atheist hates Christians.
Those stereotypes already exist, and often it is the atheists that say agnostics have commitment issues, or the Christians who claim that atheists hate Christians. Stereotypes exist with just about every group.
To avoid racial stereotypes, should we describes ourselves as more than just white, black, etc.?
By their perspective, this is not the fact of the matter. This is worthy of discussion, and helps you establish which direction to take the conversation/debate if you disagree with them.
To avoid racial stereotypes, should we describes ourselves as more than just white, black, etc.?
Race is a biological issue. We are talking about philosophy and self-identification. More wiggle room.
What about the ones you never responded to (I thought that was all of them, though... But I may have unknowingly rephrased some earlier questions)?
By their perspective, this is not the fact of the matter.
Okay... So what does it accomplish by pointing out whether they "know" or don't know?
Race is a biological issue. We are talking about philosophy and self-identification. More wiggle room.
Alright, fair enough... Then how will strong atheists avoid the stereotypes that many Christians currently give atheists, and how will weak atheists avoid the stereotypes given to agnostics?
What about the ones you never responded to (I thought that was all of them, though.
If I didn't respond, it is because I have already answered the question. Whether or not I answered in a way that makes sense may be a different question. But, frankly, I'm losing my ability to care whether you don't get it or just don't agree.
Okay... So what does it accomplish by pointing out whether they "know" or don't know?
If they believe knowledge does exist on the topic and that they have this knowledge, it fosters stronger beliefs, potentially promotes antagonism, etc.
Let's say I'm debating with a gnostic theist, specifically a Biblical literalist. My strategy would be to demonstrate errors within the Bible.
This wouldn't work so well with an agnostic theist. They tend to be purely faith based, so I demonstrate the problems with faith.
Then how will strong atheists avoid the stereotypes that many Christians currently give atheists, and how will weak atheists avoid the stereotypes given to agnostics?
Different people have different tactics. For me and my like minded fellows, it is about pointing out perceived flaws in the populist understandings of these words, pointing out that the real philosophy runs deeper and is more complex, and stating our stances as clearly as we are able.
It seems fairly clear to me that we have different cognitive processes. And that is fine. The world takes all kinds. But this issue is so, ultimately, minor....I don't feel like beating my head against the wall over it. I've explained my side (although the QualiaSoup video is a better description) fairly thoroughly, and if you still don't agree, that's fine. No skin off my nose.
I did that once. You started debating me on the same topic right here. At first I was willing to pursue it again, but repeating myself and watching you do the same got a little old. Even the guy who posted this debate started getting where I was coming from in the course of one or two debate sessions. And he initially displayed an emotional investment against it. If my method doesn't work for you, that's fine. But I didn't invent it. You will see it around.
I realize that it is common, but in an academic setting it usually is not recognized.
Anthony Flew (basically the Richard Dawkins of his time) was really the one that introduced positive/negative atheism, and that wasn't until the 1970's. He was tired of atheism meaning the assertion that God does not exist, and wanted it to be used in a way similar to atypical or asymmetrical. He even admitted that his way was unlike the common usage of the word at that time, and that his newly suggested negative atheism was just like the already common agnosticism. Atheists of the time liked his interpretation, and adopted it... However, Flew eventually converted to deism, and he ended up losing a lot of respect amongst the atheist community.
Yes they do, they are just employing a different school of thought then you are, and it is a common, increasingly dominant, school of though among atheists, so whether you believe it or not, get used to it.
The most common approach to these words, generally favored by theists, is that atheist believe there is no God, and that agnostics don't have beliefs at all. This is common, but many of us find it inaccurate in reference to the word parts, as well as incomplete and anti-intellectual.
They are right that by definition, agnosticism is about "knowledge" not "belief". And by common structure of the Greek language, "a-" could mean either "lack of" or "opposite". For most of us, "lack of" is the more correct usage because people who believe there is no Go also lack belief in God. All of this creates a four-part system that is more accurate in accounting for the range of possibilities than the three parts spectrum, and there are numerous metaphors that exist to demonstrate this.
"Yes they do, they are just employing a different school of thought then you are, and it is a common, increasingly dominant, school of though among atheists, so whether you believe it or not, get used to it."
You do Realize I can easily reverse that logic back to atheists correct? I can say, "oh you label yourself atheist but your not 100% sure if there is a god therefore your agnostic."
"The most common approach to these words, generally favored by theists, is that atheist believe there is no God, and that agnostics don't have beliefs at all. This is common, but many of us find it inaccurate in reference to the word parts, as well as incomplete and anti-intellectual."
Agnostic and atheist are two completely different things. An agnostic isn't sure whether there exists a supernatural deity or not. They don't have knowledge if there is one, while atheists think and conclude there is no god or gods or any supernatural deity for that matter. So no its not inaccurate or incomplete or anti-intellectual.
"They are right that by definition, agnosticism is about "knowledge" not "belief". And by common structure of the Greek language, "a-" could mean either "lack of" or "opposite". For most of us, "lack of" is the more correct usage because people who believe there is no Go also lack belief in God. All of this creates a four-part system that is more accurate in accounting for the range of possibilities than the three parts spectrum, and there are numerous metaphors that exist to demonstrate this."
Yes, you are correct that it is about knowledge but that knowledge also leads to belief.
You do Realize I can easily reverse that logic back to atheists correct? I can say, "oh you label yourself atheist but your not 100% sure if there is a god therefore your agnostic."
Umm...yeah. I don't think you would find many of us who would argue with that either. I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist.
Agnostic and atheist are two completely different things.
Yeah, that's my point. They aren't a "yes, no maybe" spectrum.
Meanwhile, your definition is ONE that I provided. Like I said, there are two schools of thought on the subject. You don't have to believe in the school I follow any more than I have to believe in yours. But you will hear this one, especially from self-described atheists, so you just need to be ready.
An agnostic isn't sure whether there exists a supernatural deity or not. They don't have knowledge if there is one,
Knowledge is not the same thing as belief.
while atheists think and conclude there is no god or gods or any supernatural deity for that matter.
They don't believe in one. Whether or not they claim to KNOW this depends on the atheist. These days, the majority of us don't tend to make that claim, although some will. There are different kinds of atheists, just like different kinds of theists, or even different kinds of Christians.
So no its not inaccurate or incomplete or anti-intellectual.
"Agnostic means they don't know what to believe" is redundant since one definition of atheism can cover that territory. And is inaccurate because agnosticism tells you only what they claim to have knowledge of, not what they believe. Therefore the statement features inaccuracy, is incomplete because you still don't know what they believe, and is anti-intellectual because of these failings.
Yes, you are correct that it is about knowledge but that knowledge also leads to belief.
It should, but that doesn't mean that it does for all people. There are, in fact, agnostic theists. They don't claim to know God exists, but they believe in him anyway, using pure faith as fuel instead of knowledge.
"Umm...yeah. I don't think you would find many of us who would argue with that either. I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist."
And at the same time you wont find many agnostic's who would agree with some of you atheists.
"Meanwhile, your definition is ONE that I provided. Like I said, there are two schools of thought on the subject. You don't have to believe in the school I follow any more than I have to believe in yours. But you will hear this one, especially from self-described atheists, so you just need to be ready. "
Than why are you disputing me than? Shouldn't you be clarifying?
"Knowledge is not the same thing as belief."
It can lead to belief however.
"They don't believe in one. Whether or not they claim to KNOW this depends on the atheist. These days, the majority of us don't tend to make that claim, although some will. There are different kinds of atheists, just like different kinds of theists, or even different kinds of Christians. "
I've always wondered this, is there such thing as an agnostic Christian? I'm sure there is but I wonder if people can label themselves that.
"is redundant since one definition of atheism can cover that territory. "
whats that definition than?
"It should, but that doesn't mean that it does for all people. There are, in fact, agnostic theists. They don't claim to know God exists, but they believe in him anyway, using pure faith as fuel instead of knowledge"
Ah ok so there is such thing as an agnostic Christian/theist.
And at the same time you wont find many agnostic's who would agree with some of you atheists.
Aside from the people who consider themselves both. Which is almost identical to the number of atheists who hold this view.
Than why are you disputing me than? Shouldn't you be clarifying?
Because you are labeling a view as wrong, but I dispute that.
It can lead to belief however.
Of course it can, and I believe it should. But some people put more stock in faith than in knowledge. I don't agree with those people, but I cannot deny that they are out there. And as long as I know they are there, I want a viable system to account for them.
whats that definition than?
In its simplest, an atheist is somebody who does not believe in any Gods. Belief is an active thing by its nature. If someone is saying that they don't know if they believe, then they don't believe. It doesn't mean that they believe there is no God. It simply says that they aren't convinced. At the same time, people who claim they know that God doesn't exist obviously don't believe in God either, so they are atheists as well, just in a different way.
Ah ok so there is such thing as an agnostic Christian/theist.
Yeah, and I think they might be more common than people realize. But just like gnostic atheists get more press and tend to be more belligerent, gnostic theists do too, and end up covering up their agnostic brothers and sisters. Also, I don't think most of them self-identify as agnostic theist, but the category is there for them regardless.
I guess I just don't like to label myself an atheist. I guess I am an "atheist agnostic" but I don't technically consider myself atheist. I always thought atheists were more convinced than agnostics that there is no god or gods. So Im confused here should atheists label themselves agnostics? or should agnostics label themselves atheist?
I guess I just don't like to label myself an atheist. I guess I am an "atheist agnostic" but I don't technically consider myself atheist.
Well, by my understanding you qualify as an atheist, specifically an agnostic one. However, how you choose to identify yourself is, of course, your choice. If you were to choose to identify as atheist, even "agnostic atheist" (or any synonyms such as weak atheist) you will have people assuming that you claim there is no God. It can get annoying and pull debates off topic. So "going agnostic" can deal with that. Of course some people acuse agnostics of being wishy-washy or having "comitment issues", and you will possibly attract more people trying to convert you. So I guess it depends on which types of arguments you prefer to deal with. I think a lot of us prefer atheist because it sounds less "confused" to others, for better or for worse. I admit that some good evidence could some day make me a theist, as unlikely as that seems. But until then I definitely do not believe in God, although I also don't claim for a fact that he does not exist. I know...it can get confusing, but its the most accurate way to describe my stance.
So Im confused here should atheists label themselves agnostics? or should agnostics label themselves atheist?
Like I said, its up to you. It also isn't universal in either case. Most agnostics are atheist but not all are. Most atheists are agnostics, but not all. If someone claims that God definitely does not exist, they are atheist, but not agnostic, so they should only say atheist. But for those of us that identify as both, we can use either one we prefer, or combine them like I do.
In my opinion, negative atheists should label themselves agnostic... And positive atheists should label themselves as atheist. They always bring up the Greek origin of the word, but ignore how people used that term in those days... And thousands of years after. However, the meanings of words sometimes change depending on how people use them.
I suggest that you don't even worry about labels. People are too obsessed with labels.
One idea that I have is that Agnostics get bullied sometime. There are a lot of mean Atheists and if you associate with them it is looked down on. So, people who call themselves Agnostics get left alone. I am pretty sure this is true for some people.
Another idea is that the Atheists who say that believe that the word Atheist means not Theist, so Agnostics are in that category.
Agnostics are atheists.......okay. Instead of refuting that I will simply post the definitions of the two positions.
Agnostic:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Atheist:
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Do you notice the prime difference between the definitions?
I don't know if 'afraid' is the right word, but this is a correct position.
The issue is, there are two definition sets at play for both atheist and agnostics.
There's the dictionary definitions (paraphrased)...
-Atheism refers to not believing in any god or gods.
-Agnosticism refers to the belief that the existence of god cannot be subject to rational proof, and as such cannot be proven or disproven. This is as opposed to Gnosticism (dictionary, not the gnostic movement within christianity which is something else entirely), which holds that the existence of god is something that can, in fact, be known and subject to rational proof.
And then the definitions as perceived by society...
-Atheists believe that there is no god, such a thing as a god is impossible, and that anyone who believes in a god is wrong.
-Agnostics, while not believing in god, don't necessarily believe that a god is impossible, nor do they want to call someone who believes wrong simply for believing. They simply do not believe in any gods they are familiar with.
One of the groups in the latter definition is hostile. The label agnostic is used primarily to distance one from the perceived meaning attached to atheist. Those who actually label themselves as agnostic primarily fall under the perceived definition of agnostic as opposed specifically to the dictionary one; many due believe that god could be proven or disproven, just not yet after all.
So, the group who labels themselves as agnostic do, in fact, fall under the dictionary definition of atheist. They use this label specifically due to the stigma associated with the label atheist, to clarify their position.
Atheist's are somewhat correct in thinking that 'agnostics are atheists but are too afraid to say it,' although 'afraid' isn't the right word. It seems the mistakes here lie in 1) not understanding the reasoning behind making this distinction, and 2) the implication that there is anything wrong with making that distinction.
