There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

[Gabriel Reproba]

This seems to be coming up more and more these days. Unsaved trash are waltzing in here and saying things like, "I'm not an atheist...I'm an agnostic," as if there were a difference. I have had to reply to so many of these deluded souls that I felt compelled to lay out the definitions so that they would see that they are, indeed, atheists and, hopefully, realize that they are going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity unless they change their ways.

First, let's look at the dictionary definitions of some key terms:

(Taken from dictionary.com)

atheist — n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

agnostic — n
1. a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible

be·lieve – v
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

If you question these, go look them up. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Now, if you do not agree with these definitions, I humbly submit that your visits here are done since you are trying to alter the American language for the feeble purpose of making yourself feel better. You are in denial.

Once people start altering reality to fit with their own emotional desires and irrational fears, you end up in crazy town with a bunch of people talking nonsense to make each other feel better.

OK. All of the crazy dictionary denialists gone? Good. So, assuming you DO agree with these definitions, (and maybe even took the 60 seconds to look them up yourself), let's examine a simple syllogism that addresses the core of your confusion.

1) An atheist is one who does not believe in any gods.
2) An agnostic does not believe in any gods.
3) ERGO: An agnostic is an atheist.

The key to most people's confusion here is statement two. They think that by saying "I just don't know if there are any gods or not" they are somehow excluded from the group of people who don't believe in God. It is a very simple thing to illustrate the fallacy here. Ask them, "Do you believe in a god or gods?" Did they answer "yes?" If they did not answer "yes," then -- no matter what else they may have said -- they do not "believe." Ergo, they are an atheist.

Looking at it a different way, you can use the definitions we found and some simple phrase substitutions and you get the same result. For example, go back to the dictionary and read the definition of "believe" again. Now...let me ask you one simple question, "Do you currently believe any gods exist?"

Or, substituting the dictionary definition of believe: "Do you to 'have confidence in the existence' of any gods?"

Since the agnostic position is that they can never know if there are any gods or not, these means that you do NOT have "confidence" in the existence of any gods. So, since you do not believe in any gods, we go back to the definition of an atheist and find that you satisfy it. You are currently "a-" (without) "theistic" (a belief in gods); or "without a belief in gods." End of sentence. Full stop. It doesn't mean that you are not open to the possibility that some evidence might be presented to you sometime in the future that would convince you of the existence of a god, it just means that AT THIS TIME, you don't believe in any gods.

Let's be clear. This is a life or death issue. That said, PLEASE point out where I have gotten ANY of this wrong. I am open to any valid criticism of this you may have. Just don't whine that you don't LIKE being called an atheist. Like I said: as soon as you start trying to change reality to fit your emotional needs, you step into crazy town.

I hope this helps you see the error of your ways and prepare yourself for eternal torment in Hell's lake of fire. Take care!


PS: I just had a thought. Perhaps you are confusing "agnostic" with "weak atheist?" There are strong and weak atheists. Strong atheists assert that not only do they not believe in any gods, but that there is enough evidence to actively believe that there are no gods. (A subtle but important difference.) Weak atheists merely say that they do not believe in any gods, but that you can't ever say that "there are no gods" because, no matter how unlikely they think it to be, there just might be something out there that qualifies as a "god."

Both types of atheists are going to burn in Hell equally because the Bible makes it very clear that God accepts nothing but full, complete, unquestioning belief, but it is nice to come to a full understanding of yourself before meeting the Devil, wouldn't you say?

[barton]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

I'm glad you started this thread since so many visitors skip the atheist threads, thinking those don't apply to them! You are, of course, exactly correct: the agnostic label is just euphemistic... and I think it's very important to examine why such euphemism is important to so many people.

First of all, the pinnacle of atheism is the unabashed, shameless exclamation that God does not exist. It is extreme in its hateful, sinful confidence. Certainly, there is no small amount of bravado in such an atheist's heart! Winning this kind of person over to the Lord's Team would be a great victory. Their fiery passion used to Glorify Him would be a wonder to behold!

However, the modern world is not full of vigorous persons anymore. There are too many shallow, non-committal milksops everywhere. They shrink from their own shadows, afraid to take a stand on anything. This is why there's a growing number of hellbound heathens too timid to come out and actually admit they are atheists.

No. They'd rather find room in the middle, whining about how they just can't know if there's a God or not. These pathetic people make me sick. I sometimes wonder if there's any point hoping they can become Christians. They'd be as tepid for the Lord as they are for Satan right now, I think.

[Devon~]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

I'm reposting this because you've got the definitions wrong, and I feel I should highlight how and where so save others believing this spun view.

atheist — n
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

agnostic — n
1. a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible

'If you do not agree with these definitions, I humbly submit that your visits here are done since you are altering the American language to make yourself feel better. '

Regardless of this, your definition of the latter isn't quite correct - which dictionary are you using? The bold word should be 'possible'.

Also, I am not Medling with the 'American language' - for starters that word isn't American, it's English word coined by an English Biologist called T.H. Huxley. Different dictionaries may also have slightly differently phrased definitions, unless you have 'the perfect dictionary'? However, this site combines book-definitions, so all are covered.

This is from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Ag-nos-tic
–noun
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.
–adjective
3.
of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.
asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

There are big differences between your definition, which you didn't directly source, and the biggest online dictionary's (which also matches my Collins Dictionary) definitions.

Yes, both agnostic and atheist beliefs do not specify belief in God, but the latter suggests the person in question is confused, in doubt, or are uncertain of the existence of a 'supreme being' because of lack of knowledge (hence why I said Aussie is looking for answers, and why she is asking you questions) but also may have a sense that there is something out there, as many agnostics do, because that is what leads them to ask questions.

Atheists on the other hand are solid in their belief that there is no God and have no doubts at all that they are right in that belief.

An agnostic's uncertainty is what separates them from being and atheist, as they are unsure and undecided in what they believe, either way.

[Gabriel Reproba]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

An agnostic's uncertainty is what separates them from being and atheist, as they are unsure and undecided in what they believe, either way.

Does an agnostic believe there are any gods? No. They do not BELIEVE. End of story.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

'Agnosticism' may as well be from the Greek 'Ag' bone 'Nos' idleness 'Tic' heartfelt.

Greek for 'Bone Idle Heart Laziness', which is what agnostics are really. The -ism is just there to tart it up too.


YIC, McUinnean of that Ilk.

[SUV]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Ever time I see one I just go ahead and address him as "Aggie" as it takes a God-Damned qweer to only Pretend he Believes in the Christ - but just a little bit

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Regardless of this, your definition of the latter isn't quite correct - which dictionary are you using? The bold word should be 'possible'.

Speaking as an atheist, I would like to help you out. You seem very intelligent and a smart guy. However, I think you are missing the point. I have a few points I would like you to consider.

First point: His definition of "agnostic" IS accurate. After the term was invented by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, it was discussed and refined heavily by philosophers, especially Bertrand Russell. (Let me Google that for you.) Simply review his FIRST sentence in this famous essay in which he explains this fairly recently invented term:

What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time

Second point: Look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic again. Scroll down to the English Word Dictionary which some people find more accurate, especially on matters of subtlety. That seems to be the source of his definition. That it coincides perfectly with the definition given by the man who practically invented the modern usage of the word seems to indicate that Gabe chose the right dictionary to use. Instead of farming all the dictionaries for the one most suited for his purpose, he found the one that matches what Mr. Russell said.

If you don't like that, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the Wikipedia page on the issue will convince you as to how the term is used?

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

Third Point: Notice the use of the word "know" or "knowledge" in all of these definitions of agnosticism. Agnosticism is a position on the ability to "know" something while atheism is a position on your "belief" in something. Now, I submit the difference is either meaningless or so subtle as to rarely matter. That said, it can be a useful tool in identifying crazy people. If someone acknowledges that they don't know something but they believe it passionately, I suggest that it is a form of mental illness. Most religious people know this deep down as well, which is why they always say that the "know" God as well as "believe" in God. Just look at the people on this board. They don't personally KNOW anything about any god, but they BELIEVE in ONE of those gods passionately.

(Shhh! Don't tell them that! It gets them angry.)

Fourth point: And possibly most importantly of all, ALL of your definitions you pulled for another dictionary STILL SUPPORT GABE'S ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION. Unless they are insane, an agnostic does not believe in any gods. To do so you have to return to the state I just described where you admit that you don't and possibly never can know anything about any god, but you still believe in at least one.

The short version of his argument is summed up by his question in his original post: Do you believe (have a high level of confidence) in the existence of any god? It seems that by reading your posts that your answer to this, and the answer of every non-insane agnostic, is "no." You add that you suspect that there might be something. Maybe you feel like there should be something. But you don't know and, because you are an intelligent, non-crazy person, you don't currently believe in any gods.

So, you are an atheist.

Bonus Point: Gabe's definitions of Strong vs. Weak atheists is accurate and I encourage you to review them. "Weak" in this case is not used in a pejorative sense. A weak atheist says "I do not believe in any gods, but I can not actively assert that none exist." A strong atheist says, "Not only do I not believe in any gods, but I find enough evidence to assert that none exist."

Please really think about this. There is a subtle but very important distinction going on. It is discussed at length at Free Thinkers conventions around the world. Richard Dawkins, for example, is way over on the Strong Atheist side of the spectrum. I am more in the middle. I don't believe. I think there are tons of pieces of evidence to show the impossibility of any being that would fit the definition of a god from existing, but I have a philosophical issue from asserting "I know there are no gods," because I am not 100% sure. I am 99.999% sure, but just as Bertrand Russell pointed out that one can ever be 100% sure that there is NOT a tea cup orbiting somewhere in the rings of Saturn, one can never be 100% sure that there is not some being somewhere that would qualify as a god to us. That said, I lean to the strong side because there is so much evidence to the contrary that it seems close to a certainty.

I submit that you are an atheist who is fairly far out on the weak end of the Strong vs Weak Atheist spectrum.

Listen, I understand what you are going through. I used to be in the place you are. You are having an emotional reaction to the word "atheist" because you have been trained by the church-run media to associate it with "evil" and "cruel" etc. Your emotional reaction is so strong that you are trying VERY hard to convince everyone else that even though you hold a position of not knowing what to believe somehow excludes you from the group of people you currently belong to on a definitional level.

Just accept it and move on.

[Gabriel Reproba]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Speaking as an atheist, I would like to help you out help you go straight to Hell while we have homo sex together.

Fixed your typo.

If someone acknowledges that they don't know something but they believe it passionately, I suggest that it is a form of mental illness. Most religious people know this deep down as well, which is why they always say that the "know" God as well as "believe" in God. Just look at the people on this board. They don't personally KNOW anything about any god, but they BELIEVE in ONE of those gods passionately.

(Shhh! Don't tell them that! It gets them angry.)

Darn right, this makes us angry. You are trying to lead people to ETERNAL DAMNATION just because YOU HATE GOD.

You see, this is where the lying atheist agenda is exposed. As God tells us, everyone knows about God and the Holy Spirit. All supposed "non-believers" (atheists, joos, hindoos, mooslims, etc.) KNOW that God is sending the Holy Spirit into their hearts, but they hate God (usually because of some test he laid before them earlier in their lives such as the death of a parent or being born a cripple) so they lie about this.

Even after being called out y True Christians, they insist that they have no such direct contact with God. Well, let me ask you this:

If our Lord God didn't reveal Himself to EVERYONE, how could he send those people to Hell for not accepting Him and still be the pure essence of goodness that we know Him to be?

He wouldn't do that, of course, so he must have exposed himself to everyone. The logic is unassailable. Everyone has had the same revelation as we have, some just lie about it.

Don't be one of those liars!

[SUV]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Blah blah blah blah BLEAH!

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

It is discussed at length at Free Thinkers conventions around the world.

Stop pretending there is any talking on those conventions. Everyone knows they are really gay sex orgies.

[SUV]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Truly, EVERY knee shall bow!

[napa valley nan]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Problem is, agnostic doesnt fit exactly into "Doesnt Believe In God" cause thats cancelled out by "Doesn't NOT Believe In God". So definition PUSHED an PAINTED on agnostics here not complete. Important part left out.

I mean does this make sense?

1)A California person is one who does not live in Texas.
2) A Oregon person does not live in Texas.
3) ERGO: A Oregon person is a California person.

Because it looks like that’s what’s bein PAINTED and PUSHED on agnostics here. An the Christians are fighting to claim us and our atheist cousins are dragging to claim us and WE ARE BETWEEN. Not yes not no.

The pro writers say it best, and this one’s a older experienced lady (has seen a lot) with AWARDS.

(She does say she talks about STRICT agnostics, though so could be different than regular agnostic?) (agnostic interesting part is 7:10)

Anyway I’m not talking about religion here because upsets people. I mean IT upsets people sorry but Agnostic is neutral like Switzerland. An someone asked if I am retarded no. I am keeping eye on the shop an can't type as good as everyone.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Problem is, agnostic doesnt fit exactly into "Doesnt Believe In God" cause thats cancelled out by "Doesn't NOT Believe In God".

As an atheist, I am glad you are willing to think about this, and I encourage you to ignore the fanatics here.

That said, you are still confusing "agnosticism" and "atheism." That you don't comprehend the diference is disturbing since at least two people here (one theist and one atheist) have spent a lot of time trying to explain a fairly simple concept to you. In fact it makes me suspect you are just having some fun and you don't really believe anything you say. BUT, since I only "suspect" it and I don't "believe" it, I will assume you are being honest and I will make one more good faith effort to explain.

They are two mutually exclusive ideas. You demonstrate that you are confusing them when you write "agnostic doesnt fit exactly into 'Doesnt Believe In God'." You are right, but the only problem is that nobody is saying that it does. What Agnosticism DOES fit exactly into "believes that knowledge of anything about God is impossible." It is atheism that fits perfectly into "doesn't believe in God." Please stop confusing the two terms.

Once more:

Agnostic says "Knowledge about any god is impossible."

Atheist says "I do not believe in any gods."

Do you see how these are not mutually exclusive terms?

One can be an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Theist, and even the weird Agnostic Theist. (As crazy as he is, Gabe gets it right with the little table he made.)

What these guys ARE saying about you being an atheist, and I agree with them, is that ANY agnostic who is not completely insane is also an atheist. They are giving you the benefit of the doubt and are assuming that you are not crazy. Since you are not crazy, you can't be an Agnostic Theist, so you must be an Agnostic Atheist. That is, to be an agnostic who is NOT an atheist means that you would be an Agnostic Theist which would mean that while you believe that any knowledge about any gods is impossible, you nevertheless still believe in a god.

Do you agree that to believe in things that you also agree one can know nothing about would be crazy?

It is the same as saying "It is impossible to know anything about what is behind the magic curtain." And then say "There is a unicorn behind that curtain. That is what I believe."

Note: You are not saying "I am guessing" or "I suspect" or "I wish." You are saying "I believe."

You also betray your misunderstanding when you say:

Agnostic is neutral like Switzerland.

Wrong wrong wrong! To be neutral you would have to refuse to take a position on the matter. Agnostics don't do that and you haven't done that. The NON-neutral agnostic position is that knowledge of gods is impossible. Ask any Christian, Muslim, Jew, or other theist is that is a neutral position. See what they say. For that matter, ask any logical human. That is not a "neutral" position.

You, yourself, have previously posted both of the following statements:

You believe that knowledge about any gods is impossible

You don't believe in any gods

Those are links to at least one place each on these boards where you have stated these as your positions.

I am done trying to explain. If you can't pick up one of any number of dictionaries or read any number of encyclopedias, even wikipedia, and see that these are the definitions of AGNOSTICS in the first statement and ATHEISTS in the second statement, then you are beyond rational discussion and you are merely a wad of nervous emotional blabering who tries to come to sites like this and tell people what to do or say but refuses to act like an adult and participate in thoughtful discussion.

When you can't even crack open some reseach books and say "Oh... I see. I misunderstood these labels" when everyone else who thinks about these topics are in agreement, you are beyond hope. In fact, I kind of hope you become a devout Christian because that type of behavior is what Christians are all bout. (Denying reality when it contradicts what they emotionally want to believe.)

Good luck.

PS: As far as the "pro writer" her name is Margaret Atwood. A blurb on her:

She is among the most-honoured authors of fiction in recent history; she is a winner of the Arthur C. Clarke Award and Prince of Asturias award for Literature, has been shortlisted for the Booker Prize five times, winning once, and has been a finalist for the Governor General's Award seven times, winning twice.

[Gabriel Reproba]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Nan,

Have you come to your senses yet? Even the God mocking athiest gets it, why don't you?

Oh, and as for you, Invisible Gay Uniporn, you said:

In fact, I kind of hope you become a devout Christian because that type of behavior is what Christians are all bout. (Denying reality when it contradicts what they emotionally want to believe.)

Please point out ONE post anywhere here by a True Christian where they deny reality in favor of their emotions. (Nan doesn't count since she is an atheist, not a True Christian.)

[Brother Temperance]

Re: There is no such thing as an "agnostic!"

Atheists on the other hand are solid in their belief that there is no God and have no doubts at all that they are right in that belief.

So the moment an atheist has one single moment of doubt, according to you they stop being an atheist? What a very strange version of fundamentalist atheism you subscribe to.

Problem is, agnostic doesnt fit exactly into "Doesnt Believe In God" cause thats cancelled out by "Doesn't NOT Believe In God". So definition PUSHED an PAINTED on agnostics here not complete.

Quit your whining. If I had my way, agnostics would be PUSHED down flights of stairs and have "INDECISIVE LUKEWARM GOD-MOCKER" PAINTED on them, so everyone who passed them could jeer at their feeble-minded lack of faith.

Because it looks like that’s what’s bein PAINTED and PUSHED on agnostics here. An the Christians are fighting to claim us and our atheist cousins are dragging to claim us and WE ARE BETWEEN. Not yes not no.

If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists. George Bush said that, so it must be true.

I mean IT upsets people sorry but Agnostic is neutral like Switzerland.

The Swiss also upset me.

Anyway, this thread raises an interesting question. If agnostics don't exist because they're secrely atheists, and atheists don't exist because deep down they know that God exists, does that mean that agnostics are non-existent twice over? That sounds like an awful lot of trouble, and what on earth do they hope to gain from it?