Question for Agnostics

Personally, I regard myself as an atheist - someone who does not believe in God, and may very well believe that there is no God, to boot. Now philosophically, if I were to pin myself down, hold a gun to my head (with my spare hand) and force myself to be absolutely honest then I'd concede that I'd probably come under some sort of category of 'agnostic'- it is of course impossible to know that (a) God does not exist, just as its impossible to know whether the real world is really really out there.But this to me is a disingenous distinction - it has no real meaning. I don't believe that Willy Wonka actually existed but of course I can't be completely certain of it - so would that make me agnostic with respect to Willy Wonka?I realise that agnosticism and atheism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it bugs me that if the definition of agnostic is along the lines of someone who says there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial (see below) then what room does that leave atheism? (note: its not the traditional atheistic definition of atheism as being a-theism, without Gods, here I'm referring to here, but the agnostic characterisation of atheism as knowing there is no God). And under these circumstances, what does it mean to be an agnostic theist?So taking a lightningly brief tour of Agnostic sites on Google, I find this piece by Bertrand Russell, who I seem to recall described himself as agnostic in front of fellow philosophers but atheist in the company of Joe Public (bolding mine): Its this last sentence which intrigues me, as Russell seems to be saying that whilst an agnostic may for practical purposes be an atheist (as opposed to impractical purposes, presumably?) it is also somehow possible for an agnostic to consider the idea of an Abrahamic Deity to be somehow more likely than the Olympian Gods.Do any self-confessed agnostics agree with this assessment? If so, what's the rationale behind this?PE

The "don't cares" are also quite interesting in this regard, as if asked whether Willy Wonka (to continue the theme) existed they would probably answer 'no', whereas if asked the same question about God they would, by definition, answer: "don't know, don't care".There seems to be an implicit difference between this type of agnostic's views on Willy Wonka and God - I'm just curious to have them explain to me what this is (assuming they exist on this forum).

quote:

---

I think that the problem is that in trying to define the position of not believing in god(s)..or Willi Wonka for that matter, there will be a range of beliefs.

---

I agree. I had this idea of a personal belief continuum where people would rate things accordingly to how much they personally believed in them. For example, (without thinking too deeply about them), my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow would be very close to 100%, belief that aliens exist out there is probably about 99%, belief that there are more McDonalds than Burger Kings in London is about 50%, belief that Iraq had a secret hidden chemical weapons programme just before this recent Gulf War is about 5%, belief that a God exists is approximately 0.6375% etc, you get the idea. Then you get everybody's results onto a normal curve and use an arbitrary cut-off point to determine at which point you become atheist (say the top 40% etc) as opposed to theist / "agnostic".Anyway, to get back on topic, I guess deep down what irks me is the thought that describing oneself as agnostic is akin to some sort of intellectual cowardice - a way of sugaring the pill to make oneself more appealing to theists and the like. I'm not saying I passionately believe this to be true, its just a hunch, an uncomfortable intuition if you like, I'd very much like to get rid of.PE

quote:

---

Though a pain to get data for, this would probably be more reflective of the average beliefs of people including religious people. One could as you say, then define specific points or zones in the distribution where one is atheist, agnostic all the way to carpet chewing radical fundie....

---

Well, we'd only need a representative sample. And we'd have to warn fundies that they weren't allowed certainty values greater than 100.

quote:

---

I have never seen so many Starbucks coffee shops as in London..even New York City looks like a minor league player in comparison.

---

I am that one person in the world who finds coffee abhorrent in all of its forms. My friends (plural) tell me I'm crazy, that one day I'll grow out of it, but the few times I have tried it I almost gagged. Don't like the smell either. Never been to Starbuck's. And I don't care.I've never even heard of Starbucks anyway.

quote:

---

It will be hard to get rid of. The entire enterprise of trying to specifically define atheism/agnosticism seems to me an effort by the religious right to define atheism as a religious system with a set of universal core beliefs. In addition, they proclaim this "religious" group is somehow trying to force itself onto unsuspecting religious people and "convert" them. Agnosticism would be like a sect of a broader movement. Think about how many times you have heard creationists rant about how Darwinism is the religion of atheists or atheism is a religion and other such nonesense.

---

Part of me feels like I'm starting to sound like Syamsu with my emphasis on definition rather than substance, although I'd like to think that I have been reading and responding to your comments rather than just rewording my OP. The dictinction between atheism and agnosticism, if any exists, is completely arbitrary as you suggest. However I'm of the opinion - call me a carpet chewing angry atheist if you like - that thinks the world would benefit from less dogma and more thought. A potential obstacle to this is when people refer to themselves as agnostic rather than atheist, when they mean atheist. I'd like to think that no-one does this. I'm pretty sure that no-one I know does this consciously. But I do suspect that some agnostics refer to themselves as such to avoid being labelled atheists and the stigma that goes along with it, so in that sense its important. To me anyway.PE

quote:

---

I also found coffee to be an acquired taste...and after continuous long nights in lab during my Ph.D...a necessity...and now I am just plain addicted.

---

Go away, Nazi

quote:

---

I agree we need less dogma and more thought in general. However, if I tell you I am an atheist, that does not really give you much to go on regarding my worldview does it? Contrast that with Christian...while even that term does not tell you exactly what the person believes, you probably would make some assumptions about some core beliefs that person has. Similarly, fundamentalist Christian as a label gives you a pretty good idea of what the person believes. However, I have no idea how your lack of belief in god(s) influences your life and worldview. It forces one to deal with each person as an individual rather than as a group. When arguing about different groups of people atheists will get lumped together even if they are radically different from one another in their worldviews.

---

Well I was really referring to a label for one's "religious" views rather than a worldview (what's that German word for worldview?). In terms of a worldview, I suppose "agnostic" also conveys an equal lack of meaningful information - but I agree with your overall sentiment that categories for humans tend to be restrictive rather than enlightening.

quote:

---

It is interesting that you bring up the stigma associated with the word atheist. It is perhaps the selective force driving up the frequency of the label agnostic?

---

Ah, but a new selective force is in town. The Primordial Egg drive to eradicate the word "agnostic" in people's hearts and minds. And after that, I take France.PEAdded by edit: The word is 'Weltanschauung'. Working for a German company has its benefits after all.[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-06-2003]

Hi Mark,I'm not sure here but does being agnostic in order to maintain logical purity not lead to the inescapable conclusion that you have to be agnostic about absolutely everything?Now there's no way I can logically argue that this is incorrect, (especially given that it isn't). But dammit, maybe I can appeal to your emotions - if saying that the existence of God is about as likely as the three-headed mongoose king of Neptune, then you're really saying, what you're really communicating here, is that you don't think God exists.

quote:

---

Where Atheism (as we understand it) differs, is that it says there is no evidence for the existence of Willy Wonka/God, therefore they don't exist. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: if it hasn't been proven to be true, it is false.

---

Atheism, as sometimes defined by atheists uses the etymology of the word "a-theist", without God or Gods i.e. a lack of God belief. This is perfectly logically sustainable. Now typically an agnostic or a theist might define an atheist as someone who believes that there is no God (an active rather than a passive definition). I don't like this definition but even then, I don't see what is logically erroneous with believing in the non-existence of God, much like I believe in the non-existence of Tom Thumb.If the definitons above hold, can I persuade you to come back into the atheist fold? Go on, you know you want to PE